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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:

azazel the cat wrote: The 4 shots from the Tesla Destructor's "Heavy 4" ROF are mean to happen simultaneously.

Citation needed.

BRB page 18 wrote:When a unit fires, all of its weapons are fired simultaneously, so you should ideally roll all of its To Hit dice together.

Ah, but that says weapons are fired simultaneously, not that Shots happen simultaneously. Anyway, this is just nitpicking.
Main point is I disagree on the interpretation says initial shot (first shot) happens in fact 4 times. If 4 shots are fired at exactly same time, none of them is "initial shot", because for shot to be initial, it must happen before other shots.

Yep nice to see you chiming in on this stuff Yak, but I gotta tell you, if I'd read this before the Obyron responses by you and Puma, I'd have discussed that other one a bit w/you. The RAW on this is likely one arc per shot. You realize now each shot can hit up to 3x, the "initial shot" most logically refers to the shot vs. the bounce, and the RAW very possibly doesn't match RAI - the intent is likely what you're saying, ie, one bounce per volley. And that's probably for the best w/a 90 point, AV13 Annihilation Barge. But the RAW is still most logically parsed as one bounce per shot, where each tesla destructor gets 4x shots. And imo there's a small but finite chance the writers intended it that way. Basically, the rule isn't well written (for us argumentative aholes anyway) b/c they didn't differentiate between "shot" as in entire volley by the Tesla Destructor and "shot" as in each round fired.

edit: to be clear, I don't see the Tesla Destructor (which is the main armament for Night Scythes also) as having meant to be that powerful. I might play it one time that way to see what happens, though.

yakface wrote:
That is a good point, however even so, if you're trying to interpret it that each shot somehow has a chance of generating an arc, then you'd still be bound by the word 'initial'. While we may not know exactly which shot is the 'initial' one, that is the ONLY shot that generates an arc.

This may be the case, but then there are extra rules we'd have to add to the process. We can't know which of the shots was the initial one after we are told to roll them simultaneously, so the best method would have to be rolling an extra die after resolving the shooting to determine which of the four shots was the "initial" one.

That of course is assuming that what the designer meant by "initial shot" was "the first shot fired in the salvo of four shots." What if what they meant by "initial" was instead "the shot fired by the destructor, as opposed to the arcs resulting from said shot" ? The second may be the case if they were worried about players thinking the arcs themselves could arc, so "initial" may have been included to prevent players from doing that. Maybe "initial" refers to the first shot of the game, rather than the first per shooting phase, in which case the designer's intent was that arcing would only happen once per destructor per game.

As each of these is a possibility, I'd classify this as a situation in which there are multiple interpretations. The first (the first in the salvo is the only one that determines whether it arcs or not) is in contradiction with the rules (which tell us to roll all dice simultaneously), and adds extra complexity to the process in the form of randomly determining which shot was the one that arc'd. The second (each shot determines its own arc individually) does not contradict the rules, but adds the complexity of keeping track of each shot.

The second is the simplest to resolve and also doesn't conflict with given rules. In addition, an on-hit effect that doesn't happen with each shot would be an exception to the general rule in this codex, as there are at least five other effects I can think of (off the top of my head) within the codex that apply on the to-hit roll for each hit.

EDIT: I have played it both ways, on and off, first because I was genuinely unsure and second to see if it really did make that big of a difference. Generally, it doesn't make that big a difference. There are some exceptions, most notably against dark eldar, but in the games where it only rolls a D6 the mechanic is really swingy, doesn't generally affect the game very much, and slows the game down for no real reason (if you're into game design, those are basically the three cardinal sins). I see HIWPI as well as RaI arguments going either way.

You roll for shots simultaneously because it makes it easier. Want an easy way to solve this problem? Roll them separately. That way, the first die you roll is the Initial shot.

Mind=Blown.

Or, you could just, you know, roll them all together as usual, and if one its, make that your initial shot. If more than one hits, choose one and make that one your initial shot.

again Mind=Blown.

@McNinja:

We are told, RaW, to roll simultaneously. Whether or not it is easier for you to roll dice one at a time does not have relevance to the discussion.

As mentioned before, you can't roll and then later decide which of your shots was the one that arc'd. If you missed, and the shot that missed was the one that was going to arc, and then you picked amongst the ones that hit instead of all four shots, you would be cheating.

If, on the other hand, after you rolled, you selected one of the four shots (whether it hit or missed) at random to determine which one was the first shot, you would not be cheating, but you would be adding extra steps to the rules. In addition, you would also be adding extra complexity to the situation in which you rolled to arc for each shot:

If you rolled to hit with each shot, then kept track of whether each of them hit or not, you could easily determine how many times you had to arc. If, however, you had to randomly determine which of the four shots arc'd from among those that both missed and hit, you would not only have to determine the number of times you hit, as in the multiple arc example, but you would also have to determine which among those was supposed to arc, and if it missed, you would not arc.

TL;DR? In order to do what you want to do, you have to actually copy the process you would use in the argument that opposes you and make it more complex.

I congratulate you on repeatedly "blowing" your own mind. It's good to learn several things every day, I find.

Kitzz wrote:@McNinja:

We are told, RaW, to roll simultaneously. Whether or not it is easier for you to roll dice one at a time does not have relevance to the discussion.

As per the BRB-
When a unit fires, all of its weapons are fired
simultaneously, so you should ideally roll all of its To Hit
dice together. Sometimes there will be different
weapons firing, or firers with different BS in the same
unit, in which case we find it easiest to use different
coloured dice, so that those shots can be picked out.
For example, a squad may include several bolters, a
plasma gun and a lascannon, in which case you could
use white dice for bolter shots, a green dice for the
plasma gun and a red dice for the lascannon.
Alternatively, you can simply make separate dice rolls
for different weapons or shooters, as long as it is clear
which dice rolls represent which shots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply using differently colored die can also solve the problem.


Oh, and this Arc rule, no matter how you play it, does slow down the game, just like Imotekh does, and its why taking Imotekh in Apoc games is generally a huge time-sink and a no-no, even though that's where he'd be most effective.

The section you bolded allows you to make separate dice rolls for different weapons or shooters, not separate dice rolls for the same weapon.

While the arc rule does slow down the game, my point was that your version was the slowest.

There is no rule for rolling different shots for the same weapon.

How hard would it be to use a green die and tell your opponent that the green die is the initial shot required by the rule?

Pretty hard. Impossible, actually, seeing as "simultaneous" means "at the same time."

If do 4 things at the same time, you can't be doing one of them first. That's about as contradictory as contradictions get.

azazel the cat wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I already did factor in the chances of the best case scenario happening. I know it's horrifically low. And I'm not stressing over imotekh, I just used him as an example of additional shenanigans that necrons can do, but as you stated the odds of some of the extra benefits are quite low what with everything "extra" only happening on a 6.

By this very same logic, the Furioso Dreadnought is overpowered because it has the potential to generate an infinite number of attacks.

However, I doubt that anyone will call a Furioso Dreadnought "overpowered".

Given the rarity of the arc effect from Tesla Destructors, I actually don't think that this new interpretation in any way makes them that brutal; it just allows the players to see an effect that doesn't often occur.

That's not an even assessment though because you're not factoring in all the rules of the model plus it's points cost, like I did in my previous post(s).

Kevin949 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I agree, you side of the interpretation is equally valid.

This is unfortunately one of those coin-toss situations, where the evidence falls equally on either interpretation.

I won't lie when I say that all other things being equal, I'm choosing to side with Katzz's interpretation because I am a Necron player.

I'm a necron player as well, and I would love to side with Kitzz, unfortunately I don't agree with his interpretation. Considering more often than not I've hit with 3 or 4 shots, it seems a bit overpowered that all units within 6" could potentially be splashed with up to four D6 hits. Imagine, however ludicrous the odds may be, if a unit got hit all 4 times and maxed hits, that's 24 hits from a weapon that didn't even target them. Couple that with Imotekhs lightning and all the other shenanigans the army can pull...from a balance perspective alone I just don't see how that could be. You're already getting 2 extra wounds for every 6 on the hit roll, plus the arc potential (does the arc benefit from Tesla as well? I don't think it does) plus the fact it's twin linked and assault (or heavy?) 4...that's more than plenty for the horde destroyer weapon.

apart from the arcing though the destructor has nothing going for it. only equipped on expensive, low armor vehicles, no ap, and even then there is a low chance of arcing and even then the wounds it will cause are negligible when firing into a large squad. also doesn't it kinda sound like in the codex to you that the arc may be one use, initial meaning first? because it kinda reads once the tesla destructors initial (first) shot has been resolved...(blah blah blah)

Are you trying to make an argument that TDs wouldn't be GOOD without the ability to arc 4 times per shooting phase? TDs are amazing. Arcing at all is a complete bonus and they'd be well worth it even if they didn't. Annihilation Barges are widely acknowledged as being dirt cheap for what you get, and probably underpriced as they're pretty much an auto-include in most builds.

The word "initial" makes clear that there's only one round of Arc checks per phase, not up to four, even if the sloppiness of antecedents is confusing to a given reader.

Nemesor wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I agree, you side of the interpretation is equally valid.

This is unfortunately one of those coin-toss situations, where the evidence falls equally on either interpretation.

I won't lie when I say that all other things being equal, I'm choosing to side with Katzz's interpretation because I am a Necron player.

I'm a necron player as well, and I would love to side with Kitzz, unfortunately I don't agree with his interpretation. Considering more often than not I've hit with 3 or 4 shots, it seems a bit overpowered that all units within 6" could potentially be splashed with up to four D6 hits. Imagine, however ludicrous the odds may be, if a unit got hit all 4 times and maxed hits, that's 24 hits from a weapon that didn't even target them. Couple that with Imotekhs lightning and all the other shenanigans the army can pull...from a balance perspective alone I just don't see how that could be. You're already getting 2 extra wounds for every 6 on the hit roll, plus the arc potential (does the arc benefit from Tesla as well? I don't think it does) plus the fact it's twin linked and assault (or heavy?) 4...that's more than plenty for the horde destroyer weapon.

apart from the arcing though the destructor has nothing going for it. only equipped on expensive, low armor vehicles, no ap, and even then there is a low chance of arcing and even then the wounds it will cause are negligible when firing into a large squad. also doesn't it kinda sound like in the codex to you that the arc may be one use, initial meaning first? because it kinda reads once the tesla destructors initial (first) shot has been resolved...(blah blah blah)

I didn't realize that AV13 was low, or that 90 points was expensive for an AV13 skimmer with a Twin-Linked Tesla Destructor, or that the ability to get 2 additional and automatic hits per 6 rolled to-hit with said TD was bad. The Arc effect, as Mannahnin said, is just icing on the cake, and because there's only one Arc per TL TD per shooting phase (assuming you even hit with the first shot), it just that adds that slight bit to make it even better and give it the potential to wreck clumped up horde armies, which is what all tesla weapons are best against. Just because it has AP - doesn't mean it's bad.

Someone trying to say annihilation barges arent amazing?

HEresy.

Nemesor wrote:apart from the arcing though the destructor has nothing going for it. only equipped on expensive, low armor vehicles, no ap, and even then there is a low chance of arcing and even then the wounds it will cause are negligible when firing into a large squad. also doesn't it kinda sound like in the codex to you that the arc may be one use, initial meaning first? because it kinda reads once the tesla destructors initial (first) shot has been resolved...(blah blah blah)

I'm going to go with everyone else and say:
You can't be serious if you're calling an Annihilation Barge an expensive, low armor vehicle.

Unless Nemesor means Night Scythes and Doom Scythes... in which case the DS has a S10 AP1 weapon that causes automatic hits, and the Night Scythe is a Supersonic Transport that can hold up to 15 models.