Condemnor Boltgun?

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.

**quiestdeus**

Great summary Zagman.

**winterman**

Since units cannot possess special rules

You sure?

BROTHERHOOD OF PSYKERS/SORCERERS
A unit with this special rule counts as a Mastery Level I Psyker. The unit follows all the normal rules for Psykers, with the following clarifications:

Units can posses special rules. Sorta throws a wrench in your premises and conclusions.

Not saying this means much of anything, just that you might be trying too hard to find RaW where there is nothing but ambiguous gack.

**Zagman**

winterman wrote:
Since units cannot possess special rules

You sure?

BROTHERHOOD OF PSYKERS/SORCERERS
A unit with this special rule counts as a Mastery Level I Psyker. The unit follows all the normal rules for Psykers, with the following clarifications:

Units can posses special rules. Sorta throws a wrench in your premises and conclusions.

Not saying this means much of anything, just that you might be trying too hard to find RaW where there is nothing but ambiguous gack.

The models possess the special rules, when all models in a unit possess the same special rule it is often referred to as the unit possessing the special rule. It effectivly "a unit with this special rule" is short for "a unit with models with this special rule" They often get used interchangeably. The special rules section tells us that models and weapons get special rules. That may not be totally inclusive, but its what we've got. For example, using Brotherhood of Psykers, we have a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule. An IC Psyker joins said unit, he does not possess this special rule. Does the Unit? Or just all but one of the models? Now, the Condemnor Boltgun hits this unit, obviously both the Brotherhood of Psykers and the IC Psyker take the perils.

We aren't told Units can have special rules, we are told models can. We have to keep operation under that premise until we are told otherwise and told how to handle units with special rules. A unit with special rules is just a unit of models with those special rules.

There is no perfect RAW answer here, but I've presented my best RAW argument for understanding it and feel it is the best interpretation without further clarification from GW. Either way, the GT I'm attending next month has FAQed it as such as well, so that's the way I'll play it until told otherwise by GW or a tournament FAQ.

**winterman**

Let me throw this out there. If you read a rule that said

"The unit suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed."

Would you apply a wound to every model? Or would you apply one wound to the unit? It seems to me without any indication of how many models are affected its simply a wound from somewhere in the unit. Not the entire unit.

So how are we making the jump here that every psyker in the unit is suffering perils? The psishock rule says the unit suffers from perils, but it doesn't give any indication of how many models. All we know is that the effect of perils is 'the psyker immediately suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed".

So what we have is a unit that is suffering from a rule intended for a single model. That's all we have to go by. It would help if it had the afore mentioned 'a perils' but even without it we cannot make the jump to every psyker suffering the wound. All we know is at least 1 psyker suffers the wound, maybe more. But like the hypothetical rule I made above, applying a single wound does make a certain amount of sense.

Just my two cents, not trying to sway anyone, just something to consider.

**DarknessEternal**

Apples to Oranges.

Your example doesn't work. An exact substitution would be "The unit suffers wounds." And clearly that's not helpful.

**nosferatu1001**

This is similar to asking if a unit has a melta gun - if one model has one, can you say the unit does? I would say "yes" is an obvious answer.

Here, one model with the psyker rule means the unit does "have" the psyker rule, as one model has it.

That could be how they mean the wording...however does not help with mixed psyker / non psyker units when you work out how many peril would be needed.

**tiber55**

Really you can condense this question down to one sentence ignoring the things that we can already clearly resolve.

How do you resolve

Any unit with the Psyker special rules suffers the Perils of the Warp.

Which brings up two very important questions, how to you classify a unit as having the psyker special rule, and how to resolve a unit with multiple psyker models taking the Perils of the Warp.

This is going to have to be ruled on by every T.O. that has a sisters player from now on, and has heavy biases in both directions.

It seems that the first GT T.O. mentioned in this thread has decide to rule it very specifically

"Any unit with a psyker model in it counts as having the psyker special rule, and all psykers in the unit suffer perils"

I would venture to say that this is just as much a RAI decision as any other way to rule it, as I can see no clear RAW way to resolve this.

RAW is sufficiently unclear to allow for any number of interpretations.

I.Cs. joining units don't cause the units to have the psyker special rule therefore it doesn't effect psykers in units other than possibly the warlock council.

Units with multiple psyker models don't have the psyker special rule only the models in them do therefore units with multiple psykers aren't effected.

Any unit with a psyker model in it counts as having the psyker special rule, and all psykers in it suffer perils.

Units that suffer the Perils of the Warp every model that can suffer does.

A unit suffering the Perils of the Warp only one model suffers.

If only one model, how do you allocate, random (brotherhood precedent) closest (shooting attack)

Overall, since sisters are probably going to be a good tournament army this single rules call is going to have serious implications both for the performance of sisters armies and the performance of most every army with psykers and especially ones with psyker death stars.

**Hulksmash**

Just say no to pyschic deathstars!

**Gwyidion**

I'd like to see a page citation for this assertion that "units with models with a rule cause the unit itself to have that rule".

Many properties of models don't transfer to units. In fact, I can't think of a single rule or property that does transfer to the unit unless specifically noted to do so (i.e., all of the USRs which do).

Honestly. If you hit a seer council with this weapon, all of the warlocks die instantly. This is the "reasonable" interpretation?

"This is similar to asking if a unit has a melta gun - if one model has one, can you say the unit does? I would say "yes" is an obvious answer. "

It is actually more similar to saying the unit *is* a melta gun. A unit with a psyker in it has a psyker. The condemnor requires that the unit IS a psyker, which is very different.

For instance, Psykers can generate warp charges and manifest psychic powers. Warlock councils - as a unit - do neither of these things. They have no special rule in their entry which indicates that when held together as a council, that the unit has the Psyker, Psychic Choir, or BoP special rules, or in any other way are anything but a unit made up of psykers.

Can we please see some support for this assertion which has been called 'obvious' several times in this thread?

**Angelic**

It definitely seems counter-intuitive that there are those arguing for the Condemnor, an Assault 1 weapon, to be more effective than a Mindstrike Missile, a Heavy 1, Blast weapon. I have little doubt that a FAQ will rule any hit to be resolved as a single wound per the Brotherhood of Psyker rules. Where it's a bit more iffy is whether a single Psyker in the unit constitutes a unit with the Psyker special rule.

**Pyrian**

Gwyidion wrote:
I'd like to see a page citation for this assertion that "units with models with a rule cause the unit itself to have that rule".

...

Can we please see some support for this assertion which has been called 'obvious' several times in this thread?

It's not a rule per se, it's basic semantics. It's what it means "to have". If you have an arm, and your arm has a hand, then we can say that you have a hand. If there's a bowl of jelly beans, and one of the jelly beans is green, we cannot say that the bowl of jelly beans IS green, but we can say that the bowl of jelly beans HAS green.

(And a unit IS a group of models. That IS a rule, BTW, right up front.)

**Gwyidion**

But that's not what the rule says. The rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

Requires that the unit has the rule. Units with rules and models with rules are very different things, and the distinction between them is actually well held throughout the ruleset. There are distinct differences, across many rules between units with a model that has a rule, units consisting entirely of models with rules, etc.

Can anyone point out other instances in which a unit is treated as having a rule when a single model has that rule?

For instance - the psyker rule is listed right below the independent character rule in the farseer entry.

No one would try to argue that if a unit has an IC in the unit, that the unit HAS that rule. This is for two reasons - first, that's absurd, and second, there are specific rules which govern how an IC and a unit interact. As far as I know, pg66 doesn't have any language which governs how a unit and a psyker interact for unit purposes.

Psykers and units interact via certain rules (BoP, psychic choir, etc), but absent those, i'm fairly certain all language in the BRB about psykers deals with individual models.

Again, someone, please, cite a rule that transfers the rule Psyker to a unit when a model in the unit has that rule. Until someone does, the two assumptions that:

Units with psykers in them have the Psyker rule

and

Units hit by an effect that causes a perils means every psyker in the unit takes a perils

are both assumptions.

And again. If i suffer the penalties of my unit having the Psyker rule, what are my benefits - how many warp charges does a unit containing a farseer generate? which lists does that unit generate powers from?

**Angelic**

One could also point out that GW has been fairly consistent in not allowing you to remove more models than you have hits, i.e. Instant Death + Blast v. Swarms.

**nosferatu1001**

Actually, that is an inconsistency given the previous 3 editions allowed this (maybe 3rd was different, 4th and 5th i remember)

**quiestdeus**

@Gwyidion There are many instances of effects targeting a unit cascading down based on model qualities.

Take Fortune: "A friendly unit can re-roll all failed saving throws and Deny the Witch rolls."

Units do not have saving throws, the models in it do. The psychic power grants the effect to each model to apply based on the model's rules and characteristics. When a unit gains the Fortune effect you check its individual statline to see what value is re-rollable - if a unit is hit by the Condemnor it makes similar sense to then check each model to see if it is a psyker. Whether that check results in a single perils wound, or one per psyker is very debatable, but arguing the item never has an effect because no unit will ever have the psyker rule is... silly.

The BRB is not written with future knowledge of every potential future rules conundrum (see: Gravity Guns). The only thing we know for a fact is that Games Workshop writes precisely imprecise rules made for casual gaming, not for grammatical scrutiny. I am happy to play with the Condemnor having no effect on units in any game were most psychic powers also have no effect because units and models are "very different things" meant to represent distinct objects on the tabletop.

**Gwyidion**

Well, I'll stipulate that there is precedent for things that affect units to affect models in units. So Perils might be able to affect units.

We'll move beyond noticing that perils says it affects models, not units, so saying a unit suffers perils runs afoul of that as well.

Beyond that, It isn't silly to argue that the weapon has no effect.

The gun having an effect is predicated on the unit having the psyker special rule.

Fortune has no effect on units which don't have saves. You can apply it to sv - units - no save, no effect.

Condemnor hits unit, unit doesn't have the psyker rule, BoP, PP - no effect.

And again, this is the YMDC forum. Please cite where it states that models with a rule (psyker) cause the unit to have that rule.

GW has a history of being pretty good about this; lots of phrases such as "units with models within..." or "a unit which has a model that has .... ", or "Units consisting entirely of models with...."

Also, here's another question - a unit has one psyker and 9 regular guys. Is the argument here that because it contains one psyker, the unit counts as having that rule, and therefore the condemnor causes the unit to take perils? if so, why then do the other 9 members not also take perils? Is the argument against that, "well, the unit counts as being a psyker, but when you resolve the perils only the psyker counts as being a psyker, and the rest of the models don't". This is a bit of gymnastics when it comes to the state of this unit.

foot note - the condemnor still works just fine against anything with the brotherhood of psykers rule. That both designates how the unit is treated w/r/t psychic powers and perils of the warp, and everything seems to fit neatly into place.
and again
HIWPI - one perils, closest psyker - not OP, not nullifying wargear's entire use.

**DarknessEternal**

Gwyidion wrote:

Also, here's another question - a unit has one psyker and 9 regular guys. Is the argument here that because it contains one psyker, the unit counts as having that rule, and therefore the condemnor causes the unit to take perils? if so, why then do the other 9 members not also take perils? Is the argument against that, "well, the unit counts as being a psyker, but when you resolve the perils only the psyker counts as being a psyker, and the rest of the models don't". This is a bit of gymnastics when it comes to the state of this unit.

Good point, any hit from a Condemner Boltgun does one unsavable wound to every model in the unit hit, at least according to the people who are saying it kills units of psykers. By their logic, it kills units of anything if there's even one Psyker.

**quiestdeus**

Gwyidion wrote:

Fortune has no effect on units which don't have saves. You can apply it to sv - units - no save, no effect.

Condemnor hits unit, unit doesn't have the psyker rule, BoP, PP - no effect.

No unit has a save, only models have saves. By the logic above there should never be an effect from Fortune, Fortune does not check to see if a unit has saves it just says the unit may re-roll them. No unit has a saving throw, you have to look at the model to interpret the effect of Fortune.

You look per model to see if it is sv- (or 2+. 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+) to determine what happens. A clear case of an ability referring to a unit but implying (and requiring!) using qualities of a model within the unit to determine the effects. The psykers in a unit are logically impacted the same way: boltgun hits a unit, check each model for psyker rule, if rule is found apply perils.

It makes plenty of sense based on applying prior precedent to a situation not covered by the BRB.

Furthermore, BOP clearly states you randomize which model is affected by a perils... why would removing the closest model apply when there is a more specific precedent for handling a perils among a group of psykers? Switching stances from "it can not have an effect because models are not units" to "pick the closest" is cherry-picking which rules to follow.

As noted before, there is not going to a clear resolution to this until GW FAQs it. Each tournament, FLGS, pair of players is going to need to decide what works for them. I am just a biased party simply trying to make it clear how varied that decision can be. There is no definitive support for any of the proposed interpretations.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:
Gwyidion wrote:

Also, here's another question - a unit has one psyker and 9 regular guys. Is the argument here that because it contains one psyker, the unit counts as having that rule, and therefore the condemnor causes the unit to take perils? if so, why then do the other 9 members not also take perils? Is the argument against that, "well, the unit counts as being a psyker, but when you resolve the perils only the psyker counts as being a psyker, and the rest of the models don't". This is a bit of gymnastics when it comes to the state of this unit.

Good point, any hit from a Condemner Boltgun does one unsavable wound to every model in the unit hit, at least according to the people who are saying it kills units of psykers. By their logic, it kills units of anything if there's even one Psyker.

To stick with the meltagun example someone brought up earlier... if the model does not have the psyker, BOP, or psychic pilot rule there is no effect to that model. Meltaguns have armorbane, the rules on how to use armorbane are clear (it affects things with an AV value), so when I shoot infantry with it I know not to apply armorbane. The Perils of the Warp rules are clear they only impact psykers (and variants), so you know how to apply it when the boltgun's effect affects a mixed unit. Screamer? Not a psyker, move on. Herald? Psyker! Whammo with the Perils wound.

**DarknessEternal**

quiestdeus wrote:

To stick with the meltagun

That comparison was already proven inadequate.

**MarkyMark**

This reminds me of the preferred enemy arguement. Tiggy in a blob (we will be seeing this a lot I think

). Chaos space marines shooting at the blob. Now will they get preferred enemy?, it has a space marine in there. Just like a screamer star or seer council has a psyker in there.

**nosferatu1001**

Except that one is answered by the Page 39 rules.

**quiestdeus**

DarknessEternal wrote:
quiestdeus wrote:

To stick with the meltagun

That comparison was already proven inadequate.

Other than the fact that I disagree, that is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The only thing the previous comparison and this example have in common is the fact that they use meltaguns. One is talking about composition, the other application of special rules. I can switch to talking about a multimelta if that helps though.

**MajorSoB**

Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mynd

It doesn't say Psyker unit. It say unit with the Psyker rule. Since the unit benefits from Psykers for things like Deny the Witch I'd say it qualifies as a unit with the psychic rule. But I'm admittedly biased

God I love the smell of contention in the morning!!!

It always amazes me how animated these GW rules debates get...LOL! I think when listening to reasoned debates both pro and con it is always important to know the standing and motivation of those involved. Hyv is currently running a psyker deathstar in his tournament list in which he throws in 3 characters. If it is ruled that the condemnor boltguns do indeed affect every model in a unit where at least one model has a model with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules it will ruin his day. So understand there are hidden agendas here at work. ( Link to his current tourney build - http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2013/10/hyv3mynds-eldar-dark-eldar-october-rtt.html#more )

Oh, and to be open and honest as well, I have about 5000 pts of Sisters dying to come out and play as well as my new digital codex in hand!!!

As you were...

**rigeld2**

Accusation of bias isn't polite without proof.
There are plenty of people in here that do their absolute best to stay unbiased when discussing rules.

**hyv3mynd**

MajorSoB wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mynd

It doesn't say Psyker unit. It say unit with the Psyker rule. Since the unit benefits from Psykers for things like Deny the Witch I'd say it qualifies as a unit with the psychic rule. But I'm admittedly biased

God I love the smell of contention in the morning!!!

It always amazes me how animated these GW rules debates get...LOL! I think when listening to reasoned debates both pro and con it is always important to know the standing and motivation of those involved. Hyv is currently running a psyker deathstar in his tournament list in which he throws in 3 characters. If it is ruled that the condemnor boltguns do indeed affect every model in a unit where at least one model has a model with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules it will ruin his day. So understand there are hidden agendas here at work. ( Link to his current tourney build - http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2013/10/hyv3mynds-eldar-dark-eldar-october-rtt.html#more )

Oh, and to be open and honest as well, I have about 5000 pts of Sisters dying to come out and play as well as my new digital codex in hand!!!

As you were...

Actually you've got just about everything wrong.

Since you find the need to make this personal, let's get this 100% clear. MajorSoB is a local troll who has made it a personal crusade to defame me for whatever reasons. In fact, my blog and gaming club were both founded directly due to his constant trolling and flaming me on our local forums.

Thanks for the blog plug. If you actually know my list it has a single farseer, a single spiritseer, and no warlocks. Farseers generate 3 warp charges per player turn and can use 1 to cancel perils each time. Even with the worst possible ruling, the ONLY effect on my army would be losing my (non warlord) spirit seer to 2 comdemnor hits. It would take 6 hits to take out my farseer. My list doesn't rely on a 2++ rerollable and I've not used that combo in a single tournament game... ever.

The claim that I have a hidden agenda is a flat out lie without any foundation. Since I blog literally every list and game I play, feel free to try and prove me wrong.

My main concern is for the "health" of the game. I don't believe GW would create a 10pt piece of wargear that can remove 500pts of models without rolling to wound, no armor, no cover, no lookout sir. My only agenda is promoting an atmosphere and enjoyment of the hobby to the widest possible cross section of players. Since the RAW is unclear, my defense of the lesser beneficial RAI also leads to the least amount of people "rage quitting" due to significant chunks of their army getting removed by cheap wargear with poorly written rules.

**Hulksmash**

@hyv3mnd

But couldn't the convese be true? Couldn't the ridiculous 2++ drive potentially more people away from the hobby than a ruling on an item that honestly only damages two builds in the entire game?

I know my enjoyment of the game diminishes when the type of list this effects shows up in force to events (and it has been). And let's be clear, I never felt diminished enjoyment when I saw tons GK's or Long Fang Spam, or Mech IG. I still got to play the game at that point

For what it's worth I don't think you have a "hidden" agenda. Nor do I really care. I've admitted my bias for my decisions. The way the local GT ruled it will make a better scene overall in my opinion and that's what I'm after. See, biased

**Ricter**

I don't really think the "less rage quits" argument really applies when you want a ruling that encourages 2++ rerollable saves across a unit that every army has to deal with.

**Boss GreenNutz**

We have a tourney coming up and I think I just got the slow answer of the year when I asked how this was going to be ruled.

They are going to allow you to LOS the hit at STR5 AP-.

I have had a couple of people ask how we will be ruling on the Condemnor Boltgun for the Series event on Sunday (and, until GW issues a FAQ on it, into the future), and this is what we've decided:

When a unit that contains one or more models with the Psyker USR is hit by the Condemnor Boltgun, there will always be a "wound" added to the wound pool from that result. If the "to wound" roll for the weapon is successful, that wound will be a S5 AP - wound with the SOB version of "Psi-Shock". If the "to wound" (or armor penetration) roll is unsuccessful, it *still* puts something into the wound pool, but it is *only* the Psi-Shock effect. Wounds then get allocated as normal. If the wound (or the Psi-Shock) gets allocated to a model with the Psyker USR, that model suffers a perils.

Some illustrative examples. In all of these the target unit is a squad of Grey Hunters (GH) with Rune Priest (Psyker) attached. The Rune Priest is the closest model to the firer.

Example #1: Shooter scores one Condemnor wound. If the Rune Priest makes a Look Out Sir! roll, the Condemnor wound is passed to the nearest GH model, who takes a S5 AP- wound (i.e., Armor Save) plus Psi-Shock, which does nothing to the non-Psyker.

Example #2: Condemnor hits but fails to wound. Rune Priest can attempt to LOS! the hit onto a GH. If successful, there is no effect, since the shot didn't cause a wound, only Psi-Shock.

This ruling applies only to weapons with the new version of Psi-Shock that is in the "new" SOB codex. It's not clear whether the new codex authors intended for this change the existing Psi-Shock to be universal or not (e.g., the wave of FAQ updates to harmonize Servo Arms once the new SM Codex landed), so for now we're leaving it confined to the one weapon that has the variant rule.

For anyone that's interested in why we went this direction: It's a really poorly written rule. "Units" do not typically have the "Psyker" special rule. Individiual Models have the Psyker rule, and it is not one of the rules (e.g., Slow and Purposeful) that conveys from a single model to a unit. The GK Condemnor gets around this problem by requiring that an unsaved wound (not just a "hit") occur to trigger Psi-Shock.

**hyv3mynd**

Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mnd

But couldn't the convese be true? Couldn't the ridiculous 2++ drive potentially more people away from the hobby than a ruling on an item that honestly only damages two builds in the entire game?

I know my enjoyment of the game diminishes when the type of list this effects shows up in force to events (and it has been). And let's be clear, I never felt diminished enjoyment when I saw tons GK's or Long Fang Spam, or Mech IG. I still got to play the game at that point

It most certainly could be true, but that relies on several assumptions and assigning benefit of the doubt to a company with a history undeserving of that.

1. Fun is subjective. See all the comp debates that have popped up since the advent of 2++ rerollable. People complained about builds in the past being unfun. Despite this, there are always competitive gamers who say "I want to try by best list vs someone else's best list, and have fun doing so".

2. GW doesn't design the game for tournaments, and doesn't play test competitive tournament builds. Many people have the belief that GW didn't even realize a 2+ rerollable was possible or intended. The idea that they would design a piece or wargear to cause anywhere from 1 up to 13 (2 farseers, libby, 10 warlocks) perils on a unit with a single shot relies on the idea that they thoroughly playtest all unit combos.

3. TBH, when I hear the guys who brought thudd gun spam to a tournament complain about someone else's army ruining their fun, I LOL IRL. See point #1. The fact that you've used units in the past that "diminish others' enjoyment" causes me to throw out your whole "2++ rerollable is unfun" argument.

4. The screamerstar and jetseerstar rely on randomly generated psychic powers, successful psychic tests, and avoidance of psychic defenses such as runic weapons and SiTW. Condemnors are guaranteed (pay 10pts and you have it every time) and only require a 3+ to hit. No roll to wound, no armor, no invuln, no lookout sir. While people claim there's a huge issue with the 2++ rerollable deathstars, I believe only a single player (Matt D.) has had continued success at the GT level with it, when they need to generate the key powers in all 6/8 games. While it sucks when you're the guy they got their key powers against, I fail to see how it's different than a player with no AA facing the flying circus. And based on tournament results, those builds aren't a guaranteed win or dominating uncontested.

**Hulksmash**

hyv3mynd wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mnd

But couldn't the convese be true? Couldn't the ridiculous 2++ drive potentially more people away from the hobby than a ruling on an item that honestly only damages two builds in the entire game?

I know my enjoyment of the game diminishes when the type of list this effects shows up in force to events (and it has been). And let's be clear, I never felt diminished enjoyment when I saw tons GK's or Long Fang Spam, or Mech IG. I still got to play the game at that point

It most certainly could be true, but that relies on several assumptions and assigning benefit of the doubt to a company with a history undeserving of that.

1. Fun is subjective. See all the comp debates that have popped up since the advent of 2++ rerollable. People complained about builds in the past being unfun. Despite this, there are always competitive gamers who say "I want to try by best list vs someone else's best list, and have fun doing so".

2. GW doesn't design the game for tournaments, and doesn't play test competitive tournament builds. Many people have the belief that GW didn't even realize a 2+ rerollable was possible or intended. The idea that they would design a piece or wargear to cause anywhere from 1 up to 13 (2 farseers, libby, 10 warlocks) perils on a unit with a single shot relies on the idea that they thoroughly playtest all unit combos.

3. TBH, when I hear the guys who brought thudd gun spam to a tournament complain about someone else's army ruining their fun, I LOL IRL. See point #1. The fact that you've used units in the past that "diminish others' enjoyment" causes me to throw out your whole "2++ rerollable is unfun" argument.

4. The screamerstar and jetseerstar rely on randomly generated psychic powers, successful psychic tests, and avoidance of psychic defenses such as runic weapons and SiTW. Condemnors are guaranteed (pay 10pts and you have it every time) and only require a 3+ to hit. No roll to wound, no armor, no invuln, no lookout sir. While people claim there's a huge issue with the 2++ rerollable deathstars, I believe only a single player (Matt D.) has had continued success at the GT level with it, when they need to generate the key powers in all 6/8 games. While it sucks when you're the guy they got their key powers against, I fail to see how it's different than a player with no AA facing the flying circus. And based on tournament results, those builds aren't a guaranteed win or dominating uncontested.

1. I consider myself a competitive player. However I think you missed my point. It's not my fun I'm worried about. I'll probably just make the game a silly what happens event for myself. But it's hard to argue that this list isn't frustrating. It's basically twice as bad as wound allocation shennanigans from 5th. And we all know how much the general player loved those even though there were work-arounds.

2. I'm not saying it's designed for it. I'm saying maybe a dude at GW was like "Know what, Sisters Hatred of all things psychic should have some punch! What about this? It's totally cinematic!". We don't know. I'm not saying they meant for it to fix a problem. i'm sayin I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when they accidentally fix a problem. See the difference?

3. Wow, took all the way to point three to try and make it personal. Well done. Last I checked a single unit isn't spam. Disregard that the list it was in was Target's, not mine and add in the only person who admitted to being upset by what the weapon did was a guy who beat us by the way

Good try man.

4. It's not a lock but it's statistically suppose to happen. Oh, you can mitigate ally flyer vs. no AA on the tabletop. You can't really mitigate the damage the two units in question can do right now. Again, I'll beat most of those lists that go to actual game turns ending. But it's not about me.

Sorry you seem to feel I'm out to get you and you want to make it personal. Good luck to you sir in your crusade to defend two whole units from this single item.