Jaws of the World Wolf

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.

**Night's Blood**

Where does it say the line is a template weapon? Is it in the power description? Or is it your subjective interpretation... Don't you think they would use the word template once in the codex or FAQ? The answer is they have never done so, not once.

The NOVA and INAT FAQ are, in this case, wrong. They've been wrong before and will wrong in the future.They do get rulings correct, in this case however they are incorrect. I'm sure they are intelligent people, but intelligent people CAN be wrong, as this case clearly shows.

I'll tell you what, i have a "friend" that works in GW and he tells me JOTWW requires a roll to hit. See how this works?

As nos said, give me a line, sentence, page, any empirical proof of your point. Up to this point, nothing has been put forth with any worth.

**ToI**

Bikeninja wrote:There is nothing vague about draw a line and if the model is touched by the line it has to take an initiative test. Space Wolves are not an easy army they are just an army like all the others. You do not have to roll to hit. The line is a template for all practical purposes and until GW does another FAQ and says JotWW has to roll to hit, good luck making me roll those dice. While I realize the NOVA and INAT are unofficial they are put to gether by some extremely smart and intelligent people. To discount their rulings based on the fact they are not official or "I don't agree" is folly. This poor guy tried to have a simple question answered and you guys have jacked this to do another round of this arguement. Both sides have valid points both in RAW and RAI. I simply believe based on all that is written that you do not roll to hit for it. The guys whom I play with who have played every addition and every side game since its inception(me included) and totalled almost 150 years of GW gaming experience easily say "Nah you do not need to hit just read the rule the power" that lends more credence to me than many of the silly rules lawyering here.

Good luck with your debate gentlemen.

You may want to take a look at the tenets. This discussion is not about what you "believe" happens, or what you think "should" happen. It is about what the rules clearly state (RAW). According to the RAW JotWW must roll to hit as per any other PSA. With a permissive rules set, it tells us what we do in the general and unless an official rulebook specifically states otherwise the general still applies. JotWW is still a PSA as per it's description on p. 37 of the SW codex "As a psychic shooting attack, the rune priest may trace a straight line along the board starting from the rune priest and ending 24" away." The rule for the power doesn't contradict the PSA general rules, so a roll to hit is still called for according to the rules. This is not rules lawyering, this is RAW fact.

**wyomingfox**

These debates would be so much more enjoyable if done in person...with machetes in hand...while being recorded on You-Tube for our collective viewing pleasure

edit: rather than the repeated snearing and sniping this has quickly devolved into.

**ToI**

wyomingfox wrote:These debates would be so much more enjoyable if done in person...with machetes in hand...while being recorded on You-Tube for our collective viewing pleasure.

That was unhelpful. One side has given substantial evidence and precedent (PSA needing rolls to hit) in the rules for their ruling, and the other has given none (?). Post something that adds to the discussion...

**willydstyle**

The counter-argument is written into the rules for JotWW, which *is* a rule. The power does not behave like *any* other shooting weapon, so I don't see how needing to roll to hit is even material, as it does not create *hits* and there's no stipulation needing a hit roll for the "line" to be created.

So probably the RAW is that it rolls to hit, but then you simply *ignore* the to-hit roll because it doesn't affect how the power works.

**lledwey**

But that is your assumption, and sure it might make sense, but that doesn't make it a rule. It does behave like a few shooting weapons in a few different ways, but that isn't the point. Like I said earlier, just because the units are hit in a strange way doesn't mean you can't have a hit roll. Blast markers need a hit roll (granted, it is a different type, but still). You roll a die to determine where the effect of the shot lands and if it does any damage. There is absolutely no reason, other than you feeling like it makes sense, that the Jaws line can't behave the same way.

**Bikeninja**

wyomingfox wrote:These debates would be so much more enjoyable if done in person...with machetes in hand...while being recorded on You-Tube for our collective viewing pleasure

edit: rather than the repeated snearing and sniping this has quickly devolved into.

In my opinion it would be a whole lot of people standing around thinking "I really have to talk face to face with a person I disagree with, Man I hope they do not know my handle".

As for the rest. If you can't read the rule and determine that a roll to hit not needed, I just feel sorry for ya.

**hsojvvad**

How come in the Tyranid Codex wich is made after the Space Wolf codex, (please correct me if I am wrong) that the Tyranid PSA it clearly states you don't need to roll to hit, it is hit automaitcally.

So how come JotWW does not say this? No where does it say it is hit automatically and no where does it say, that JotWW is a template weapon as well.

It would be nice for people to start acknowladging what oter people are saying and debating what the other said, instead of saying, you are wrong it's because of this way, instead of proving the person wrong in what he said.

Also as well the INAT is done, by no way it is LAW and alot of stuff in there can be debateable because alot of it is from previous 40K editions on how it was played instead of actual 5th edtion rules.

**Andilus Greatsword**

Bikeninja wrote:There is nothing vague about draw a line and if the model is touched by the line it has to take an initiative test. Space Wolves are not an easy army they are just an army like all the others. You do not have to roll to hit. The line is a template for all practical purposes and until GW does another FAQ and says JotWW has to roll to hit, good luck making me roll those dice. While I realize the NOVA and INAT are unofficial they are put to gether by some extremely smart and intelligent people. To discount their rulings based on the fact they are not official or "I don't agree" is folly. This poor guy tried to have a simple question answered and you guys have jacked this to do another round of this arguement. Both sides have valid points both in RAW and RAI. I simply believe based on all that is written that you do not roll to hit for it. The guys whom I play with who have played every addition and every side game since its inception(me included) and totalled almost 150 years of GW gaming experience easily say "Nah you do not need to hit just read the rule the power" that lends more credence to me than many of the silly rules lawyering here.

Good luck with your debate gentlemen.

To be fair, Tyr has been arguing the same way over several threads, so they're just growing very tired of it. Personally I'm going to stay out of this one until GW gives us an official ruling (I'm in the template camp, although TBH I've never used JotWW in a battle before)...

Also, Space Wolves are only the "easy" army if you spam missile launchers out the wazoo.

**lledwey**

Well, like I said before, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit, and I wouldn't force someone to do so in a game. Also, GW probably will FAQ it ruling that you don't have to roll. That isn't what this forum is for though. The rule may be stupid, but that's what it is.

Also, it seems like most of the people who are for not rolling either have a name like Wolf Wolfson, a wolf/Space Wolf in their avatar picture, or something similar, so it does get tiring and tough to take it seriously.

**Brothererekose**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Brother - and, again, you have no *specific* override to the reuqirement to-hit, as you have yet to find "instead of rolling to hit" or "this power hits automaticallY" or, in fact, anything stating the "to hit" roll required by ALL PSA is not, in fact, required here.

Welllllll, I disagree. I do think the "trace a line" is quite specific enough to replace "roll to hit" etc. , and if one accepts that is the way a model is targeted for *this* Psy-power, then the rest follows.

But you (and many others supporting you) do not accept it as 'enough'.

*shrugs*
So be it. We're at impass. I see no other argument for my position, other than I have provided, and I *do* see your POV. I just still disagree.

I do wish someone for GW would go over every power, every weapon (*ahem* Deffrolla wargear?!) and give them a consistent format of how they function, instead of an often blurred line between fluff and function. Then re-release each codex as 5.1 with the clarifications.

But then again, it is really fun to whine, bitch, piss and moan about these controversial items, right?

**Andilus Greatsword**

lledwey wrote:Well, like I said before, I think that you shouldn't have to roll to hit, and I wouldn't force someone to do so in a game. Also, GW probably will FAQ it ruling that you don't have to roll. That isn't what this forum is for though. The rule may be stupid, but that's what it is.

Also, it seems like most of the people who are for not rolling either have a name like Wolf Wolfson, a wolf/Space Wolf in their avatar picture, or something similar, so it does get tiring and tough to take it seriously.

At least we have an avatar.

**DarknessEternal**

I suspect if they ever officially came out with an answer for this, it would be that JotWW does not require a roll to hit, but it's only my gut saying that.

The rules we have to go by now though, are quite clear that it does require a roll to hit. Just like Mind War, just like Vibrocannons, just like any other shooting attack that is not specifically exempt from rolling to hit.

**lledwey**

Actually, I just checked the rules again for Vibro Cannons. This is the closest thing to Jaws other than Blood Lance, and although it is not a psychic power, the wording of it does support the hit roll.

To fire a vibro cannon, first roll to hit. Then, if it hits, you draw the line, and any unit touched by the line is hit.

So here we have the only other thing in the game besides Jaws and Blood Lance that uses the 'draw a line' method, and it requires you to hit before you place the line.

**imweasel**

Does it matter if you actually need to hit as JotWW doesn't cause wounds?

The only thing I see in the shooting rules is if you don't hit, you don't get to roll to wound.

Since JotWW doesn't cause wounds, does it matter if it hits or not?

**Mahtamori**

Rolling to hit and rolling to wound has no relationship beyond that rolling to wound sometimes require you to first roll to hit. Eschewing one does not eschew the other.

DarknessEternal: That's me belief as well. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with the GW rule design methodology (or lack thereof).

**kirsanth**

As read it, nosferatu1001 has the right of it. Outside of house rules...and INAT, iirc.

There is no reason to claim it follows template rules or overwrites text that it does not mention.

**GiantKiller**

I recently (as in, earlier this morning) posted a really, really long discussion of the "jaws rolling to hit" issue over at theruleslawyers.com.

Here's the link: http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-jaws-of-the-world-wolf-and-rolling-to-hit/ if anyone's interested!

Short summary of my opinion: Jaws requires a roll to hit, but the effect gets applied whether it hits or not.

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller
The Rules Lawyers
www.theruleslawyers.com

**BronzeJon**

GiantKiller wrote:I recently (as in, earlier this morning) posted a really, really long discussion of the "jaws rolling to hit" issue over at theruleslawyers.com.

Here's the link: http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-jaws-of-the-world-wolf-and-rolling-to-hit/ if anyone's interested!

Short summary of my opinion: Jaws requires a roll to hit, but the effect gets applied whether it hits or not.

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller
The Rules Lawyers
www.theruleslawyers.com

I am in agreement with the above.

**lledwey**

Thats a nice article, but I feel like you made a big leap from the ruling on Murderous Hurricane to your opinion on Jaws. Murderous Hurricane has two effects, Jaws has one. The FAQ clarified that even if the hurricane does no damage (the primary effect), via missing or failing to wound, the unit is still affected by the dangerous/difficult terrain part (the secondary effect.) That is too different from Jaws, its too big a leap.

Everything you said was well thought out and logical, but in the end you're still just assuming how it works. You even say, the only thing written is that you must roll to hit. You say it doesn't specify that, but even powers that obviously need a hit roll don't specify that (Living Lightning.) See above for the rules for Vibro Cannons, which work almost the same way, and they require a hit roll. Don't bother talking about templates/blasts, Jaws is not either of those, it is a line, and only 2 other things in the game are like it, Blood Lance and the aforementioned Vibro Cannons. If we're comparing two different abilities to get an idea of the rules, let's do it with things that are similar, not Jaws/Hurricane.

**imweasel**

Mahtamori wrote:Rolling to hit and rolling to wound has no relationship beyond that rolling to wound sometimes require you to first roll to hit. Eschewing one does not eschew the other.

DarknessEternal: That's me belief as well. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with the GW rule design methodology (or lack thereof).

But does it matter in JotWW case?

It explicitly states that if you are 'under/in' the line, you take an init test. Period. Whether you actually 'hit' or not with the PSA doesn't seem to matter?

**lledwey**

It matters because what if, like the very similar vibrocannon, missing means you dont draw the line at all?

**GiantKiller**

lledwey, thanks for reading.

I understand your contention, but I believe vibro cannons are too different from Jaws to have any value as precedent for three important reasons:

1. Vibro cannons cause wounds. This is probably the biggest distinguishing characteristic. Vibro cannons' effects, unlike Jaws' effects, do not fall into that category of weirder effects (read: non-wounding effects) GW discusses in its FAQ entry re: cover saves.
2. Vibro cannons are ranged weapons which include a shooting profile (alongside some additional rules on how to use them), while Jaws is a psychic power which does not.
3. Vibro cannons specifically say "if any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36" line from one vibro cannon" (Codex: Eldar p. 45) so we know exactly what happens if it misses: don't draw the line. Jaws has no such condition in its rule, it simply says "may trace a straight line" (Codex: Space Wolves p. 37).

Hope this helps!
-GiantKiller

**imweasel**

lledwey wrote:It matters because what if, like the very similar vibrocannon, missing means you dont draw the line at all?

Where in the world do you get this? That's in the vibro cannon rules. Nothing like that in the JotWW or the faq for this.

**Small, Far Away**

No, but other things it hits can be in combat.

**imweasel**

Small, Far Away wrote:No, but other things it hits can be in combat.

That would matter if GW ever set and used precedent.

They don't so it's moot. *thanks nos*

Has anyone got something that would prevent the dropping of the line if the to hit roll misses in the main rules or in the JotWW entry?

**WanderingFox**

One could rule that the following phrase in the hit rules would do just that.

"Note that the minimum roll needed to hit is always at
least 2. When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an
automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses."

Since it is a PSA, it rolls to hit, and a roll of 1 is explicitly defined as a miss and when you roll for hit there is no such thing as an automatic hit.

In this case, that would prove contradictory to the wording of JotWW, but as you can imagine this is one of the sources for confusion. Once again, it boils down to whether or not you feel JotWW and its similar powers require the roll in the first place.

**nosferatu1001**

"moot"

**willydstyle**

WanderingFox wrote:One could rule that the following phrase in the hit rules would do just that.

"Note that the minimum roll needed to hit is always at
least 2. When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an
automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses."

Since it is a PSA, it rolls to hit, and a roll of 1 is explicitly defined as a miss and when you roll for hit there is no such thing as an automatic hit.

In this case, that would prove contradictory to the wording of JotWW, but as you can imagine this is one of the sources for confusion. Once again, it boils down to whether or not you feel JotWW and its similar powers require the roll in the first place.

Even if you "miss" where does it say that the "line" is not created. Whether or not you miss is irrelevant.

**BronzeJon**

Regardless if the hit roll hits or misses, the line still causes models it goes through to take an ini test.