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.

Hi All,
Under his experimental rules on the Forgwworld site the Tomb Stalker enjoys protection against sniper weapons, poisoned weapons and the like. Would you consider an Eldar Witchblade to come under this rule as it always wounds on 2+ regardless of toughness?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/tstalker.pdf

"War Construct: The Tomb Stalker is a huge mass of shifting
pseudo-metal, with little vulnerability except to the
massive use of force. Sniper weapons, attacks with the
Poisoned ability and the like, only wound the Tomb Stalker
on a 6 (as opposed to a 4+, 2+ etc, as would normally be
the case)."

I would say that this rule would apply to Witchblades. Additionally, it would apply to DE Agonizers, too.

I see no way around it, the Witchblade always wounds on 2+, the Stalker prevents these "auto-wounds", so the Witchblade is useless against the Stalker.

Another spectacularly vague ruling from the Forgeworld team.

I can see what they are trying to do here but without specific clarification its not gonna fly, especially with some of the RAW rules nazis out there. I think until 'Witchblade' is actually listed in the stat line then will still get its 2+ to wound, especialy as it works completely differently to the listed weapons fluffwise.

And yes, I know we dont count fluff as rules here before someone jumps down my throat.

Its 195pts. I think it deserves a certain immunity to your flimsy witch swords

konort ranger wrote:Another spectacularly vague ruling from the Forgeworld team.

I can see what they are trying to do here but without specific clarification its not gonna fly, especially with some of the RAW rules nazis out there. I think until 'Witchblade' is actually listed in the stat line then will still get its 2+ to wound, especialy as it works completely differently to the listed weapons fluffwise.

And yes, I know we dont count fluff as rules here before someone jumps down my throat.

So you actually expect them to list every single weapon/ability that auto-wounds on a certain die number that do not work against a tomb stalker? It can't just be all inclusive with such words as "and the like"? I mean really, this doesn't seem a bit ludicrous to you? Read into the details instead of looking at it word for word.

So a power sword would wound normally but a witchblade would need a 6. That doesn't make a lot of sense. When I first read the rule I read "and the like" to mean things that are poisoned or use the poison rules like plague swords. Especially since the "and the like" is in the same clause of the sentence as the poison weapon (between the same comas) rather than its own clause. I'd have to go with the idea that witchblades still wound the creature on a 2+ as per normal use.

Of course it makes sense, because that's how the rule works. A power weapon would still roll normally because it is based on the wielders str instead of a static to-wound number, and since the wielder of a power weapon doesn't always have the same strength (depends on the army) then the roll will be different, where as a wychblade will always wound on a 2+ to anyone, except the tomb stalker and others with a similar ability (if any).

Leo_the_Rat wrote:So a power sword would wound normally but a witchblade would need a 6. That doesn't make a lot of sense. When I first read the rule I read "and the like" to mean things that are poisoned or use the poison rules like plague swords. I'd have to go with the idea that witchblades still wound the creature on a 2+ as per normal use.

The fluff argument holds no water in this debate. The fact that Necrons are the ancient enemy of the Eldar, and specifically designed certain creations (such as Pariahs) to take advantage of anti-psyker powers, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that such a huge, robotic monstrosity would be highly resilient to the psychically-powered Witchblades of the Eldar. It can be justified either way.

Also, anything short of a relic blade is going to wound on a 6 also, which makes sense. Only incredibly strong (S6+) attacks are going to wound on less than a 6, which makes sense for the way the rule was written ("...little vulnerability except to the massive use of force.").

RAW, it's obviously unclear (this is FW we're talking about). RaI, I'd generally go with "anything that always wounds on a set value only does so on a 6." Obviously you'd need to discuss it with your opponent first. I'd also take into consideration whether the Eldar really need the advantage against Necrons.

i do agree that it needs to be more clear as to what "and the like" would include...however the way it looks is that the witchblades would wound on a 6. but one way to deal with it would be to cast doom on it. that way you will at least have a better chance of wounding it.

also the rules are experimental...any chance they will clarify the rules?

Saldiven wrote:only wound the Tomb Stalker
on a 6 (as opposed to a 4+, 2+ etc, as would normally be
the case)

Yeah it's quite clear that set numbers turn into 6+. Imo at least.

looks like it and I'd say yes even though it is left fairly vague.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:So a power sword would wound normally but a witchblade would need a 6. That doesn't make a lot of sense. When I first read the rule I read "and the like" to mean things that are poisoned or use the poison rules like plague swords. Especially since the "and the like" is in the same clause of the sentence as the poison weapon (between the same comas) rather than its own clause. I'd have to go with the idea that witchblades still wound the creature on a 2+ as per normal use.

Well, the problem with that thinking, Leo, is the fact that the rule includes Sniper weapons that auto wound on a fixed number, and Sniper weapons are not Poisoned weapons.

The rule lists two distinct types of weapon that wound on a fixed number, and then extend that to other types of weapons that also wound on a fixed number. They even include a parenthetic notation "(as opposed to 4+, 2+ etc, as would normally be the case)" to indicate that there are a variety of different fixed to-wound roll weapons out there.

Honestly, I cannot follow any line of reasoning that would attempt to exclude things like Witchblades and Agonizers from this rule.

the wording and the implied intent is that weapons that don't wound based on strength vs toughness only wound on a 6. weapons that rely on "massive use of force" (i.e. high strength weapons) don't have to worry about it. that's what i'm getting from reading the rules. so, witchblades wound on a 6 IMO.

I played a friend's new DE army today (draw, objectives, everyones troops dead). He read the rules and was happy to except that although Agonisers are not mentioned by name the rules are worded to cover them and not just sniper/poisoned weapons. Theres got to be a reason why this thing is 195pts when its basic stats are USRs are no little than the new DE Talos...

All I'm saying in regards to the "and the like" phrase is, as written, that particular phrase only modifies the poison weapon clause of the sentence. In essence it comes down to whether you believe the list is exhaustive (like vulkan's list) or exemplary. If the former then witch blades (which are not sniper or poisoned weapons) would work as normal. If the latter then I still have a problem with just using 2 items and finding only one thing in common with them and concluding that the list should cover all other weapons that have that same ability.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:All I'm saying in regards to the "and the like" phrase is, as written, that particular phrase only modifies the poison weapon clause of the sentence. In essence it comes down to whether you believe the list is exhaustive (like vulkan's list) or exemplary. If the former then witch blades (which are not sniper or poisoned weapons) would work as normal. If the latter then I still have a problem with just using 2 items and finding only one thing in common with them and concluding that the list should cover all other weapons that have that same ability.

So then you feel the same way about the living metal rule not listing every single weapon type that does more than str+1d6 for penetration?

I don't have the rule to look at so I can't say. All I can say is that even though this game is written by English speaking people their prowess with the written word leaves a lot to be desired. C'mon GW just say what you mean. Is it really that hard?

They did though. People simply take the rules either way too literally or way too liberally.

Kevin949 wrote:People simply take the rules either way too literally or way too liberally.

...and we have a winner. This right here is why we've got this nasty RAW v. RAI factionalism. The RAW players don't like it when their opponents "fix" rules that are "unbalanced" or "shouldn't be played that way" in order to gain an advantage. Thus they take the rules very literally to prevent people from doing this (aka "you are cheating because the rules forbid you from doing X"). The RAI people don't like it when their opponents, in a lawyer-like fashion, exploit ridiculous loopholes in the rules to gain an advantage. Thus they take the rules as a set of guidelines to prevent such things (aka "clearly GW did not intend for the game to break").

The problem arises when RAW players feel RAI players are trying to gain an advantage, and when the RAI players feel the RAW players are trying to gain an advantage (often exactly opposite arguments). For example, the Deff Rolla vs Vehicles debate was very much an argument between "the rules say you can do this, so stop trying to cripple Orks" vs. "Nothing should be able to inflict D6 S10 hits on my vehicle, that's clearly unbalanced and unintended - stop trying to exploit a loophole."

...anyway, that aside, remember that we're talking about FW here. They're not known for writing extremely coherent or balanced rules, and although I'm normally a RAW proponent, FW writes its rules in a very "we think you get the idea" kind of way. By that alone (and the way the rule was justified), I'm inclined to believe that Witchblades were intended to wound on a 6 like everything else that wounds on a set value.