Knight Commander Pask question

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.

**Sir Arun**

Okay on page 59 of the AM codex it says under the crack shot bullet point:

"When firing a battle cannon, vanquisher battle cannon, demolisher siege cannon or eradicator nova cannon, Pask can re-roll To Hit rolls."

Now my question is...does this also apply to the hull, pintle and sponson mounted weapons?

It does not say "...made by these weapons" at the end of the above mentioned sentence. So my understanding is, whenever Pask fires the main gun, he gains this ability that also affects all other weapons on the Russ. Is this allowed?

I think it is, because bullet point #2 for example is pretty clear that the Rending special rule only affects the main turret weapons.

My other question is, what is the point of the Incandescent Blast of the Executioner plasma cannon? Yes, it reduces the Gets Hot risk from 3 to 1, but the firepower is definitely less (1 large blast < 3 small blasts) and Pask and his tank squadron can re-roll all Gets Hot dice anyway due to Preferred Enemy.

**Agtthot**

Ultra troll?

**Sir Arun**

no need for ad hominem. I'm asking whether this is legal or illegal according to the rules - english isnt my native language

**JinxDragon**

Sir Arun,
The Incandescent Blast provides additional Special Rules to the shot. Off the top of my head, no books allowed at work, I believe that one of them is Ignore Cover. Even if that is wrong, I know one being the very broken Blind Rule as those weapons tend to stick out a lot whenever I encounter them. This is because Blind lacks the 'one or more' wording found in many other Rules of a similar nature, which goes to show how failing to follow a unified format causes all sorts of unusual outcomes.

With the right situations, that is almost a guaranteed reduction in the targets Weapon and Ballistic Scores to Snap Shot levels.

**Sir Arun**

JinxDragon wrote:
This is because Blind lacks the 'one or more' wording, meaning every Hit triggers a test, which goes to show how failing to follow the expected format causes all sorts of unusual outcomes. With the right situations, that is almost a guaranteed reduction in the targets Weapon and Ballistic Scores.

You sure? The Landspeeder Storm's cerberus launcher also has the Blind special rule but I havent seen many threads discussing how broken the cerberus launcher is...

From my understanding a unit hit by a weapon is just that - a weapon that managed at least 1 hit on the unit. Since shooting happens simultaneously, I dont think you need to repeat this for every additional hit.

Otherwise we could apply the same logic to pinning tests - RAW the rules say: "If a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must immediately take a leadership test. This is called a Pinning test."

"one or more unsaved wounds from A weapon with the pinning special rule" means if there is a single weapon with pinning out there that happens to be a multi-shot one, it can cause more than 1 casualty, but regardless, only 1 pinning test is taken. If 2 pinning weapons cause 1 death each, 2 pinning tests have to be taken.

Of course, nobody plays that way, so I assume the same applies to blind tests.

**Eihnlazer**

blind isnt worded that way though.

It says, "any unit or model hit by must make the test" so it is definately different than pinning.

**Sir Arun**

Eihnlazer wrote:
blind isnt worded that way though.

It says, "any unit or model hit by must make the test" so it is definately different than pinning.

If every model has to make the test, what is the point in it mentioning "unit" beforehand?

Since there has to be some reason for this (else the rule could simply say "every model hit"), my reckoning is:

unit -> consists of multiple models -> makes the test

model -> lone wolves like ICs -> makes the test

**JinxDragon**

Sir Arun,
"A" doesn't always mean singular, it has many other uses in the English language that even includes 'any.' I have also never seen anyone taking 9 Pinning tests when facing a 10 man Noise Marine squad, simply because each Hit/Wound is coming from a different weapon, because it would be heavily one sided. If I was to try that against an opponent they would look at me crazy and then point out it doesn't matter how many Hits/Wounds where to be resolved against the unit, one or more is referring to the number against the Unit during that sequence and even rolling off on it would be stupid.

Besides;
Without rolling each dice one at the time how would you determine if a single Sonic Blaster is generating any Hits when you are rolling 32 dice at once?
4 of that 32 being blastmasters firing at Assault 2, instead of Sonic Blasters firing salvo 2/4.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also:-
Lone models are still Units, just units that always consist of one model throughout the game.

While I do admit putting Unit and Models together like that is confusion, the one situation I think of is covered by a 'treat as a unit' rule anyway, it still doesn't get around the fact that multiple Hits are being resolved and there is no Restriction preventing this rule being evoked on all of them. That is what the One or More clause is so very useful and why I dislike the Blind Rule, it breaks the format found in other rules. This hatred is made even more worse as it also lacks what I call the 'three clause system' that tells us what happens if it is on a weapon or a model, meaning if it is on a model whom makes a shooting attack it transfers to the attack....

**stripeydave**

The bit your'e looking for is the bit of the "crack shot" rule that starts:
"Furthermore, the turret-mounted weapon..."
on page 59. I think that answers your question?

**Sir Arun**

stripeydave wrote:
The bit your'e looking for is the bit of the "crack shot" rule that starts:
"Furthermore, the turret-mounted weapon..."
on page 59. I think that answers your question?

that should suffice. Cheers

**Scipio Africanus**

Sir Arun wrote:
no need for ad hominem. I'm asking whether this is legal or illegal according to the rules - english isnt my native language

It isn't ad hominem. He didn't attack you, he attacked your question.

To answer your question, no.

**stripeydave**

Sir Arun wrote:
stripeydave wrote:
The bit your'e looking for is the bit of the "crack shot" rule that starts:
"Furthermore, the turret-mounted weapon..."
on page 59. I think that answers your question?

that should suffice. Cheers

No worries. You're welcome.

**Bludbaff**

But the pintle-mount is on the turret too!

...No, I'm not serious.

**stripeydave**

:-)

I like your style.