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.

Say I charge 20 Gargoyles in, and score 10 hits with Blinding Venom, is that 10 Intiative Tests or just 1?

10.

Could you provide an explanation please Rigeld?

When I tell people that an Internet Person told me so, it never seems to go down well :(...

It's in the Blind usr. Unlike other things it doesn't state "if the unit takes one or more hits/wounds ,make a test ...."

See I say that, and people are telling me how "because all the Gargoyle attacks happen at the same time, its one test"

Which has no bearing on this.

I tell 'em that as well

Sorry - the explanation is plain in the rules. Ask them to cite rules support for their statement - because there isn't any.

If it helps, you can compare it to a special effect that you only roll once for regardless of how many hits you've taken. Pinning comes to mind. If you look at the wording for Pinning, it specifically states that you roll when you suffer one *or more* wounds, and that you may only force *one* pinning test per unit shooting. No such wording exists in the Blind special rule. It says whenever you suffer a hit, you roll.

A different comparison would be "Feel No Pain". By your opponent's logic, a model that suffers more than one wound may only attempt to save ONE of those wounds with a feel no pain roll, because all of the wounds happen simultaneously, and the wording is identical to the Blind special rule.

Comparisons like these should help convince your friends that one roll per hit is the correct procedure.

I've encountered this since the new codex has come out about 5 times. People really want to argue rules when it sucks for them. : /

To be fair, the vast majority of Rules that function in such a way do have the whole 'one or more' trigger and it is a little unusual this one does not.

JinxDragon wrote:
To be fair, the vast majority of Rules that function in such a way do have the whole 'one or more' trigger and it is a little unusual this one does not.

It strikes me as a rule which was written with the idea that blind was going to be a USR associated with shooting attacks. The line about if they hit themselves ignore the rule especially so. (I doubt they were so thorough to consider Mind Shackle Scarabs potential involvement)

Follow up question: Can you only get one test per Gargoyle? As the rule states any unit hit by a model with Blind takes a single test.

 Eldarain wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
To be fair, the vast majority of Rules that function in such a way do have the whole 'one or more' trigger and it is a little unusual this one does not.

It strikes me as a rule which was written with the idea that blind was going to be a USR associated with shooting attacks. The line about if they hit themselves ignore the rule especially so. (I doubt they were so thorough to consider Mind Shackle Scarabs potential involvement)

Follow up question: Can you only get one test per Gargoyle? As the rule states any unit hit by a model with Blind takes a single test.

Yes, as you replace all of their attacks with a single attack that has the Blind special rule.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
To be fair, the vast majority of Rules that function in such a way do have the whole 'one or more' trigger and it is a little unusual this one does not.

It strikes me as a rule which was written with the idea that blind was going to be a USR associated with shooting attacks. The line about if they hit themselves ignore the rule especially so. (I doubt they were so thorough to consider Mind Shackle Scarabs potential involvement)

Follow up question: Can you only get one test per Gargoyle? As the rule states any unit hit by a model with Blind takes a single test.

Yes, as you replace all of their attacks with a single attack that has the Blind special rule.

Ah, I had seen it played that they still get a +1 for charging though that might be another issue akin to Lamprey's bite and not the topic of this thread.

Here is the logic, and keep in mind that I am a Nid player, so this is *not* in my best interest, but I believe it is the correct way that the rules work.

First, I agree there is nothing in the Blind USR that dictates there will be only 1 test. The problem comes up with the timing of the attacks; and that the Blind rule does not ask anything about the attackers/hits, but instead asks a question about the target unit. This is a *very* important distinction, because while 5 gargs may have scored a hit, only 1 unit gets hit.


As mentioned earlier, all of the attacks happen at the same time, therefore all of the attacks occur before you can tell if a test triggers or not.

Lets Walk through the attack.

Gargs attack, get 5 hits.
Now follow the Blind rule:
"Any unit hit by a model or weapon with this special rule must immediately take an Initiative test."

Are there any units that were hit?
Then it takes "an init test"

The rule does *NOT SAY*:
For each hit, take a test....
For every hit, take a test...
When a model with blind hits, the target takes a test...

The rule asks a simple question... "Did a unit get hit?" If yes, then *an* init test is taken. Getting hit once means 'a unit got hit', getting hit 5 times, still means 'a unit got hit'.




Again, this happens because all of the attacks are simultaneous, and thus you don't have a chance to ask "Did a unit get hit" between attacks.

If the rule triggered off of allocated wounds.... since those are allocated singly, each wound would cause a test.
Similarly, if some of the gargs are going at a different Init Step, that would trigger a test at each step.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
To be fair, the vast majority of Rules that function in such a way do have the whole 'one or more' trigger and it is a little unusual this one does not.

It strikes me as a rule which was written with the idea that blind was going to be a USR associated with shooting attacks. The line about if they hit themselves ignore the rule especially so. (I doubt they were so thorough to consider Mind Shackle Scarabs potential involvement)

Follow up question: Can you only get one test per Gargoyle? As the rule states any unit hit by a model with Blind takes a single test.

Yes, as you replace all of their attacks with a single attack that has the Blind special rule.

Ah, I had seen it played that they still get a +1 for charging though that might be another issue akin to Lamprey's bite and not the topic of this thread.

Set values come last

Coredump,
Why then do many other rules state 'one or more hits' or 'one or more wounds' if they are already limited to just one use of the Special Rule in any case?

Jinx, can you find any other rule that states "one or more hits"? That would be a better rule to compare to as hits are different from wounds.

Fragile wrote:
Jinx, can you find any other rule that states "one or more hits"? That would be a better rule to compare to as hits are different from wounds.

Strikedown (Pg. 43) kinda works that way.

Edit: removed the ones that actually work on wounds instead of hits.

Thanks Hover

Edit.. Those are all wounds Hover, not hits.

Grounding Tests come quickly to mind.

Besides it is a formatting thing; they have always used 'one or more' when-ever they have talked about multiple instances of X causing a single occurrence of Y: One or More Wounds, One or More Special Rules, One or more Hits, One or more of your units and so forth. There is no reason to believe that Blind is meant to be somehow unique in that it follows a completely different formatting then used throughout the rest of the book. It is far more reasonable to state that this rule, by lack of the format used throughout the book, is meant to trigger multiple times because it lacks the restriction used to inform us when something only has permission to trigger once regardless of the number of times the trigger could be reached. While I personally believe it is an oversight by the Writers, there really should be a 'or more' in there somewhere given how other rules like this one act, the conclusion of 'multiple times' does not require a round about Logical argument. An argument that I will remind people was designed to restrict the Blind Special Rule in the same way as other Rules which outright state they have this restriction.

A logical argument that over look what the word Immediately means when we counter it in a Rule at that, but that is another argument for another time.