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.

If Njal happens to get "Driving Gale" on his turn (enemy models are at -1 BS), how would that affect overwatch shots, which are all made at BS 1? Would Njal lower that to BS 0, meaning the unit couldn't actually shoot?

Snapfire is a set value, Driving Gale is a +/- modifier, so they would still be BS1 due to the games order of operations.

You multiply, add and subtract, and then set values. So no, he does nothing.

Theres a bit more to this folks as its a Codex rule.

If its your turn, you get to apply your Driving Gale after the enemy models are reduced to BS1 for Overwatch, which would then make them ineligible for overwatch as the models BS skill is now 0.

This is rendered ineffective however if it is the enemies turn as they will apply your Driving Gale before Snap Firing making their X BS X-1 and then BS1 due to the rules for Snap Fire.

His codex rule is not in conflict with any BRB rules; you still follow the order of operations(Multiply/divide, then Add/Subtract, Finally set value).

So BS remains 1.

I read his special rule there for Lord of the Tempest. Kommissar Kel is correct as it is a blanket effect.

Kommissar Kel wrote:His codex rule is not in conflict with any BRB rules; you still follow the order of operations(Multiply/divide, then Add/Subtract, Finally set value).

So BS remains 1.

This. Really, you're being TFG if you insist it makes you BS0.

Not TFG; not unless you get really uppity about how it "is in conflict"; when is clearly is not in conflict.

See Xzerios realized what was wrong with his reasoning and admitted as such.

Had he been right about the 2 being in conflict(a Set-value-0, versus Snapshot; where the Set-0 is in the codex); then he would have absolutely been right.

For example: Say you were to model your Eldar howling Banshees with Power Axes; you now have 2 Set-values that are in conflict(Init 10 and Init 1), one of those values comes from a codex rule(10), so the Banshees always strike at I10 due to rule hierarchy.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
For example: Say you were to model your Eldar howling Banshees with Power Axes; you now have 2 Set-values that are in conflict(Init 10 and Init 1), one of those values comes from a codex rule(10), so the Banshees always strike at I10 due to rule hierarchy.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't see those rules in conflict. They may lead to different results, but that is not the same thing.

If the Eldar codex had wargear of a Power Axe that swung at I10, then the rules are in conflict.
Afterall, the marine codex says a sgt has I4, but the Pfirst rule says he goes at I1.... those also lead to different results, but are not 'in conflict'.

The only way you could get the power to work against overwatch/snapfire is if it was worded to apply -1 to the models BS skill when firing. Since it doesnt and is merely a blanket effect for the turn, it doesnt work in that manor.

coredump wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
For example: Say you were to model your Eldar howling Banshees with Power Axes; you now have 2 Set-values that are in conflict(Init 10 and Init 1), one of those values comes from a codex rule(10), so the Banshees always strike at I10 due to rule hierarchy.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't see those rules in conflict. They may lead to different results, but that is not the same thing.

If the Eldar codex had wargear of a Power Axe that swung at I10, then the rules are in conflict.
Afterall, the marine codex says a sgt has I4, but the Pfirst rule says he goes at I1.... those also lead to different results, but are not 'in conflict'.

It was just a rough idea; you are correct though the Banshee mask gives the model I10, Unwieldy makes the attacks at I1.

That's what I get for not verifying the rules in question.

But you get my point.

Banshees strike at I1 with unwieldy despite being I10. You fire at BS1 despite being -1BS. Set value modifiers are always after modifiers. Codex overrides in situations where there are conflicts. This is not a conflict, this is simply one rule being applied before another.

as far as banshees are concerned, they are both set values. . . of two different things. they have i10 first round, but they strike at i1, so their pile in is sooner but attacks last. (As far as i know, unwieldy says strike at i1, not become i1)