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.

I was reading through the Tau dex, and read the entry for the cyclic ion blaster. It says that on a to wound roll of 6, the wound counts as ap1, regardless of toughness. Am I missing something here? Or does it just get played as ap 1 with a completely useless qualifier at the end (regardless of toughness)?

It's actually not a useless qualifier. It means the cyclic ion blaster can actually wound higher toughness units than it normally could. For example, a wraithlord is usually out of the range for a S3 weapon to wound, however on a roll of 6 even the mighty wraithlord suffers a wound with AP1.

Lone Dragoon wrote:It's actually not a useless qualifier. It means the cyclic ion blaster can actually wound higher toughness units than it normally could. For example, a wraithlord is usually out of the range for a S3 weapon to wound, however on a roll of 6 even the mighty wraithlord suffers a wound with AP1.

But it doesnt say anything regarding wounding, merely that a wound roll of 6 is ap1 regardless of toughness, not that it wounds regardless of toughness.

The way its structured and worded leads me to believe that str vs toughness effected AP in 4th edition or some such nonsense. But according to my dex, it says nothing about wounding regardless of toughness, merely that it is ap1 regardless of toughness, is that just a typo then?

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:I was reading through the Tau dex, and read the entry for the cyclic ion blaster. It says that on a to wound roll of 6, the wound counts as ap1, regardless of toughness. Am I missing something here? Or does it just get played as ap 1 with a completely useless qualifier at the end (regardless of toughness)?

You are correct, the qualifier is useless. The CIB gets AP1 on a roll of a 6, which means the weapons can only wound T6 and lower models.

GW Has faqed this for previous editions but wouldn't be suprised if fell through the cracks on this last batch of faq's. The quality of the 6th ed faq's was less than exceptional, though I have heard rumors that there will be another round of faq's/errata sometime in august.

There was no rule like that in fourth edition. Let's break it down. Any rolls to wound of a 6 count as AP 1, fairly standard and easy to understand. Now comes the tricky part, regardless of the target's Toughness. Here's how we break it down;

1. Roll our to wound rolls, we get one 6 in that bunch on the aforementioned wraithlord.
2. We cannot wound a wraithlord normally, but regardless of the target's toughness kicks in. We've made a to wound roll of 6, and regardless of the wraithlords toughness, it counts as AP 1.
3. Because that qualifier was thrown in, regardless of the target's toughness, a roll to wound of 6 count as AP1, and are a wound.

Yes, this was actually the early style wording they used for rending. If I remember correctly rending claws, in tyranids 4th ed codex, were the first rending weapons that counted as a power weapon and had similar wording.

logic makes it seem it was meant to auto wound on a 6, but it doesn't, regardless of the targets toughness, in this case, just means, no toughness will be able to override the weapons ability to become AP1

Lone Dragoon wrote:
Yes, this was actually the early style wording they used for rending. If I remember correctly rending claws, in tyranids 4th ed codex, were the first rending weapons that counted as a power weapon and had similar wording.

Incorrect, The wording is not the old wording for rending. It is similar but not the correct wording.

Those of us that played Tau in 4th know this all to well. The funky wording prevented the weapon from gaining the rending rule and made its use some what marginal, Just as it is now.(It is OK when teamed with plasma and sometimes the AFP but a little too pricey,imo)

Back in 4th, we also called up the customer service line(Its all we had back then) and were told to ignore the "Regardless of toughness" line. Funny, this was the only time I remember GW being consistent, 4 calls at 4 different times and 4 answers saying the same thing.

Additionally, I seem to remember that at one point in 5th, the wording was faqed but this could have been the Inat faq.

Point is, that since 4th ed Tau players have known that the CIB is not rending.