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.

Arc has been errata'd:

Change the first sentence to “Once the tesla destructor’s
initial shot has been resolved, as long as it hit at least
once, roll a D6 for each other unit (friendly and enemy,
engaged and unengaged) within 6" of the target.”

Before it was possible to arc from a unit even if you had completely missed it. There is another ruling this change MAY have been attempting to fix, but even with the updated wording, it has not been (to the best of my understanding).

BRB, p.27, Type:
Some weapons such as storm bolters and multi-lasers fire multiple shots. Where this is the case the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type. For example, a multi-laser fires three shots in each shooting phase so its type is noted as Heavy 3.

RaW, I see no reason why a tesla destructor should not arc once for every one of its four shots that scored at least one hit.

What does dakka think?

~Kitzz

Due to the wording mostly. if it said Arcs for every hit that would be different. but it says if it hits it arcs. more or less anyways

It says "the initial shot" arcs as long as it hits. But per the BRB, the destructor has 4 shots. If it hits, it arcs. But each of the 4 shots, RaW, applies that effect to its target.

Unless someone can (please?) come up with a counter-argument.

The "as long as it hit at least once" is your qualifier to enact the rule in question. If it was meant to work multiple times, it would say to role for arcing for each hit scored.

I believe the clarification initial is to prevent people from trying to trigger arcs from arcs. You fire its 4 shots, if one of them hit then you are golden, it is a binary a shot hit or it did not.

"as long as it hits at least once"

Have you hit at least once? Then you get to perform the arc. Thats it.

You get one Arc. Not one per hit. First shot hits, you roll for Arc.

The antecedent of "it" in this sentence is "tesla destructor". As long as the tesla destructor hits at least once.

Although it woudl be sweet if it Arc'd for every shot that hit. Coz the gun isn't nasty enough already.

I'm not a super-expert on the grammar involved, but isn't a possessive antecedent actually an adjective, which in this case would be modifying "shot"? In any case, why should we think "destructor's" is the antecedent while "shot" isn't, seeing as one is an adjective with a noun inside of it as opposed to the other, which is simply a noun (and also the one that said adjective refers to)?

(Not disagreeing with you necessarily, just trying to understand what you're saying.)

Technically, I think Kitzz may have a point regarding the grammar: the pronoun "it" should technically refer to the most recently used noun, in this case "shot".

I doubt anyone would play that way, though.

Kitzz wrote:I'm not a super-expert on the grammar involved, but isn't a possessive antecedent actually an adjective, which in this case would be modifying "shot"? In any case, why should we think "destructor's" is the antecedent while "shot" isn't, seeing as one is an adjective with a noun inside of it as opposed to the other, which is simply a noun (and also the one that said adjective refers to)?

(Not disagreeing with you necessarily, just trying to understand what you're saying.)

None of that really matters though, the "at least once" portion is what is important. The "At least" part means that it has to hit once but it can hit up to all allowed shots, but regardless of the result (1-4 hits) it still only spawns one arc. The "initial shot" portion is to preclude arc hits from generating more arc hits as they are not the "initial shot". This could potentially have a much bigger reason for definition in 6th edition as well since the need for "initial shot" is not really necessary since currently the barge can only fire it's tesla destructor once anyway, but perhaps in 6th we will see the return of [a modified] overwatch that could open potential for multiple shots if it doesn't move. But that is speculation and irrelevant for this discussion.

As it stands, the "at least one" part is *the* most important part of the rule. Whether or not "it" refers to *shot* or *Tesla Destructor* doesn't change the end result.

It does matter, if you consider the individual shots rather than the firing of the weapon.

For example, the following interpretation is not illegal with my understanding of the rules involved:
Each shot can get 0, 1, or 3 hits. If the shot got 0 hits, it will not arc. If the shot got 1 or 3 hits, it will arc. Since each shot follows this restriction, the weapon will arc 1-4 times, depending on how many hits are eventually rolled (up to one arc per shot).

"Once the tesla destructor’s initial shot has been resolved, as long as it hit at least once, roll a D6 for each other unit (friendly and enemy, engaged and unengaged) within 6" of the target.”

So we must determine the meaning of "it". Grammatically speaking, we should consider "it" to refer to the "initial shot", and not the Tesla Destructor itself; as the most recently used noun prior to the pronoun "it" is the "initial shot", and not the Tesla Destructor.

So, if we take it to refer to the "initial shot", then we must determine what "initial shot" refers to. And this is the important part, because there are two interpretations which appear to be equally valid. I will present the interpretation that I believe Kitzz supports (and that I am now starting to, as well):

"Initial Shot" may refer to each of the 4 firing actions that the Tesla Destructor may take; as when a 6 is rolled the Tesla Destructor actually hits 3 times off of its initial shot. That is, the Tesla Destructor actually gets 4 initial shots, however these are each capable of hitting up to 3 times apiece.

This would mean that the Tesla Destructor is capable of Arcing once per initial shot, which may occur up to 4 times: once per firing action with the Tesla Destructor. However, because it states "initial shot", if a 6 is rolled -and thus the Tesla Destructor hits 3 times from that single firing action- it will only Arc once; and not all 3 times, as 2 of those 3 hits will not have been the "initial shot" from that firing action.



RAW, this is legit.

The discussion is entirely based on whether or not you believe that the "initial shot" refers to the first shot fired from its ROF, which is the first shot of its "Heavy 4", or whether you believe that the "initial shot" refers to the first of up to 3 possible hits from each of those firing actions.

I personally think that Kitzz is correct. Here's why:

The 4 shots from the Tesla Destructor's "Heavy 4" ROF are mean to happen simultaneously. Therefore, it is impossible to determine which of those 4 shots was the initial one. That is to say that there is no way to know which bullet struck first if all four were fired at the same time. Ergo, it is illogical to assume that we can know which die of the 4 that are rolled will represent the first of those 4 simultaneous shots, ipso-facto.

However, if we take Kitzz's interpretation, there is no uncertainty about what the "initial shot" is; it is the original die that is rolled, upon which may be a 6 and thus resulting in 2 additional hits. However, even if that die rolled does result in two additional hits, there is no question of which was the original -that is, the only- die rolled, and thus, the "initial shot".



Is this the rule as intended? Maybe. I cannot say. But grammatically and RAW, Kitzz is right.


And for that, Kitzz, I tip my hat to you for picking up on that, sir. I have to go buy more barges now.




EDIT: TL;DR = Kitzz is correct

Also, it was never possible to Arc if the Tesla Destructor didn't hit before this eratta.

Kitzz wrote:It does matter, if you consider the individual shots rather than the firing of the weapon.

For example, the following interpretation is not illegal with my understanding of the rules involved:
Each shot can get 0, 1, or 3 hits. If the shot got 0 hits, it will not arc. If the shot got 1 or 3 hits, it will arc. Since each shot follows this restriction, the weapon will arc 1-4 times, depending on how many hits are eventually rolled (up to one arc per shot).

@azazel as well -

If you exchange the context of "It" to "shot" without adding "the" then it is the noun of the word "shot" which makes no sense in the rule. If you add "the" then it is a verb, in which case it would mean the act of shooting and would be a more complete and cohesive sentence. Since we can assume, grammatically, that is "the shot" then we go to the game rules to note that any single model has one action during the shooting phase (special rules withstanding). "The Shot" would refer to that one action, you're not making four attacks you are making one attack that hits four times. We can disregard the word "initial" because it has no bearing right now since the rules do not allow for more than attack per vehicle weapon per turn (again, special rules withstanding).

So since we have determined that there is really only one "shot" performed by the vehicle we can ascertain that the inclusion of "as long as [the shot] hit at least once" would include the entirety of its action for that weapon and means that it can hit multiple times but since the rule states "at least" that means it must hit a total of >0 times to trigger the Arc effect, but since it is not the more specific "For each hit scored" then it does not trigger PER hit, only IF it hits at all.

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.

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

Citation needed.

azazel the cat wrote: Therefore, it is impossible to determine which of those 4 shots was the initial one. That is to say that there is no way to know which bullet struck first if all four were fired at the same time.

Except that there is very easy way to know which struck first. Technically, you're supposed to roll each dice one by one.
The first shot you roll to hit from the Heavy 4 is the "initial" one. You're rolling a D6 once per shot, right?
"To determine if the firing models have hit their target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Normally troopers will only get to fire one shot each. However, some creatures or weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later." BRB, page 17.

azazel the cat wrote:Ergo, it is illogical to assume that we can know which die of the 4 that are rolled will represent the first of those 4 simultaneous shots, ipso-facto.

Actually, its illogical to assume that the weapon fires 4 shots at simultaneously instead of firing them in rapid succession. And if it fires in rapid succession, one of the shots must be fired before others.

Take into account that "Fast rolling" techniques (page 18) are just way to speed up the game. In game, you could very easily use different coloured dice for the "initial shot".

HIWPI: If any of the 4 shots from Tesla Destructor hit, it arcs.

Remember that the fact that shooting from one unit is resolved simultaneously, doesn't mean they all actually happen instantly, which is required for the "simultaneous shots" argument.

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.

Kevin949 wrote: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.

If you're going to talk balance, Kev, you can't ignore the odds of the extra hits happening. (and you might want to go browse that GK list that won at Adepticon before stressing too much over Imotekh and the like.) All that said, balance doesn't enter into anything but HYWPI, which won't feature in a tournament. Unless you're the TO.

I think you're correct, though. I believe "initial shot" refers to the entire set of ROF 4 shots, because the subsequent effects (Tesla additional hits or Arc "splash" hits) are just that, "hits", not additional "shots". Likewise, the arc hits don't benefit from Tesla b/c they're not Tesla shots, ie, "Tesla shots have a chance to strike several times".

Could certainly use a FAQ, though - this interpretation relies on a strict differentiation of "shot" and "hit" that I don't have any confidence the original writers intended. Ie, if you asked them, there's a distinct chance they'd intended for each of the ROF 4 shots to potentially "splash".

damn this game is not sharply defined.

edit: removed redundant redundancies. 2=clarity. I could go either way on this one guys, the "initial shot" isn't precise either, I think intent was the set of ROF 4 shots, but then that's not a strict definition of "shot" either, is it.

McNinja wrote:Also, it was never possible to Arc if the Tesla Destructor didn't hit before this eratta.

Actually, it was. All that the codex version requires is the shot to be resolved. Thus, even a unit that wasn't hit could still be arc'd from. So there is a reason for the errata (other than delimiting arcs).

As for the "initial shot" argument, nowhere in the rules are you told to roll each of a weapon's shots individually. We are told that when we are firing different weapons it is useful to roll multiple types or colors of dice, but not when rolling the same weapon. Also, there is no weapon that I know of that has rules for such a situation (that is, one in which you have to roll each shot individually). Assuming that just the first shot of the four is the "initial" shot can't be backed up with strict RaW, and even if it was, the argument could be made that the arc effect is applied to all four shots and the "initial" modifier is used to distinguish the strength 7 tesla shots from the strength 5 arc hits (so that no one makes the assumption that the arcs themselves can arc). And at that point, I think it is safe to say we are in the HIWPI area.

Finally, I would also like to bring everyone's attention to the fact that there are SEVERAL effects in this codex of a similar nature. First, entropic strike. An on-hit effect that applies for each strike. Second, voltaic staves. An on-hit effect that applies for each strike. Third, tesla. An on-hit effect that applies for each strike. Fourth, Gauss. An on-hit effect that applies for each strike. Finally, arc. An on-hit effect that applies for each strike. My point here is that there is a lot of precedence within the same codex for on-hit effects, assuming you go the HIWPI route.

Was this GW's intention? Not really sure. RaW, however, the case is actually pretty solid.

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.

Kitzz wrote:Was this GW's intention? Not really sure. RaW, however, the case is actually pretty solid.

Given that the best argument against per-hit arcs is that it seems too powerful, I'd say you're correct. Still, it seems too powerful. If it were a bit less ambiguous I'd just go, "suck it" and stock up on AB's and Nightscythes, but I think the uncertainty puts us in RAI interpretation land. Dammit, though, you're correct that there aren't many weapons that apply effects like this "per-volley", are there?

Randall Turner wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: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.

If you're going to talk balance, Kev, you can't ignore the odds of the extra hits happening. (and you might want to go browse that GK list that won at Adepticon before stressing too much over Imotekh and the like.) All that said, balance doesn't enter into anything but HYWPI, which won't feature in a tournament. Unless you're the TO.

I think you're correct, though. I believe "initial shot" refers to the entire set of ROF 4 shots, because the subsequent effects (Tesla additional hits or Arc "splash" hits) are just that, "hits", not additional "shots". Likewise, the arc hits don't benefit from Tesla b/c they're not Tesla shots, ie, "Tesla shots have a chance to strike several times".

Could certainly use a FAQ, though - this interpretation relies on a strict differentiation of "shot" and "hit" that I don't have any confidence the original writers intended. Ie, if you asked them, there's a distinct chance they'd intended for each of the ROF 4 shots to potentially "splash".

damn this game is not sharply defined.

edit: removed redundant redundancies. 2=clarity. I could go either way on this one guys, the "initial shot" isn't precise either, I think intent was the set of ROF 4 shots, but then that's not a strict definition of "shot" either, is it.

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.

Basically what I'm getting at is that there are already enough gimmicks and craziness in this codex, to think that the tesla destructor is anything more than how people play it now is just a little far fetched. *Shrug*

Well, regardless, I know how I would/do play the rules for this weapon and I'll continue that. I mean, my opponents (friends) already hate playing against me enough as it is, I don't want to exacerbate that even more!

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.

Well, my view on this whole "balance" thing is that our codex isn't all that powerful, we could use a silver bullet. But I have to feel that was the author's intent. Other problem is the Tesla Destructor isn't the tool we need, god I'd kill for some dependable 48" AT firepower. Or searchlights, ffs, whose brilliant idea was it to give us all this "bring on the night" capability and not issue flashlights?

Solar Pulse can also be used to turn the lights on.

Once the tesla destructor’s initial shot has been resolved, as long as it hit at least once, roll a D6 for each other unit (friendly and enemy, engaged and unengaged) within 6" of the target.

Whether or not you believe that the word 'it' refers to 'Tesla Destructor' or 'initial shot' in that sentence it is irrelevant because of the reference to 'hit[ting] at least once'. This clearly means the rule is referencing whether or not the Tesla Destructor hit and if it did, then you roll a D6 for each other unit within 6" to see if it gets struck by an arc.

In other words, 'Tesla Destructor' = 'initial shot' = 'the normal shooting of a Tesla Destructor' because if the sentence was referring to just a single shot then there would be absolutely no need to include the 'at least once' in the rule. It would just say for each hit scored, roll a D6...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

And even if you did really, really believe that 'initial shot' meant just the first shot of the Tesla Destructor, the rule would still read that only the 'initial shot' would trigger the arc. So only the first (?) die you rolled would be the one that could trigger the arc if you managed to hit with it. You can't have your cake and eat it to and read that 'initial shot' means each individual shot and then try to apply that rule to all the weapon's shots.

Either the 'initial shot' = the first shot of the weapon (in which case you can only arc once based off whether the initial shot hits or not) or 'initial shot' = all the shots the Tesla Destructor fires (in which case you can arc if at least one of them hits the target).

yakface wrote:In other words, 'Tesla Destructor' = 'initial shot' = 'the normal shooting of a Tesla Destructor' because if the sentence was referring to just a single shot then there would be absolutely no need to include the 'at least once' in the rule. It would just say for each hit scored, roll a D6...

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is possible to score 0, 1, or 3 hits from each shot due to the Tesla rule.

That is to say, if the rule said "for each hit", then there could theoretically be 3 arcs per shot.


EDIT: And the cake is delicious.

azazel the cat wrote:

yakface wrote:In other words, 'Tesla Destructor' = 'initial shot' = 'the normal shooting of a Tesla Destructor' because if the sentence was referring to just a single shot then there would be absolutely no need to include the 'at least once' in the rule. It would just say for each hit scored, roll a D6...

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is possible to score 0, 1, or 3 hits from each shot due to the Tesla rule.

That is to say, if the rule said "for each hit", then there could theoretically be 3 arcs per shot.


EDIT: And the cake is delicious.

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.