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.

Relic, you're splitting hairs.

Here is the gist of what I'm saying.

If a piece of wargear says you strike "first" then you strike "first" the key here is that it is not giving you a certain initiative with which to strike at, but rather a specific time in which to strike during the assault phase.

Agamemnon:

In your "shiney" (sic) new codex, on the title page, what printing does it say you've got?

That would help, especially if GW pushed a 4th printing out without anyone knowing!

If your codex says 4th printing, or something like it, then you're right! Problem (sort of) solved!

If it doesn't, then we're still right where we've been, and where we'll be, until GW updates their FAQs AND catches all the little issues... (Big IF there!)

Posted By Alpharius on 04/18/2006 10:13 AM
That would help, especially if GW pushed a 4th printing out without anyone knowing!

Yikes!

Yeah, check the very first page at the center near the bottom, just above the regional addresses. There it should list the print edition.

By the way, what country did you buy the codex in? I hear that some are still a printing or two behind.

Thats what "Strikes First" does. It does not change your initiative, it simply makes you strike before the Initiative sequence occurs.

I was just on the phone with a real estate person and he woz saying much the same thing about some very dry swamp land going for a really heck of a deal!

If a piece of wargear says you strike "first" then you strike "first" the key here is that it is not giving you a certain initiative with which to strike at, but rather a specific time in which to strike during the assault phase.

Yes it is all quite clear now? Yes! No! Well???

Ok bloody, show us where "Strikes First" does indeed change the initiative characteristic.

I assume that you have a valid argument and that you are not simply trolling, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Show us where and the argument will be over.

I can show where "Strikes Last" changes the initiative characteristic.

ok, then please do so.

Posted By blue loki on 04/19/2006 7:50 AM
Ok bloody, show us where "Strikes First" does indeed change the initiative characteristic.

I assume that you have a valid argument and that you are not simply trolling, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Show us where and the argument will be over.

I remember reading that strikes first was replaced with strikes at I10, strikes last was replaced with strikes at I1, and Frag Grenades make the user strike at I10, because the defender of cover who "strikes first" strikes at I10.

However, I can only find the last 2 in the rulebook.  Not about units that strike first attacking at I10 (except when defending cover), but this does not address the issue at hand well, or that of wyches or howling banshees who can also "strike first"

Now.. as I recall reading it, and being unable to find it in the rulebook, I have a feeling it was in WD when they were explaining the changes from 3rd to 4th edition.  This being said, I cant remember when that was done to try and look up the issue.

-Legacy40k

The rules specifically state you strike simultaneously with Howling Banshees but nothing states that a powerfist no longer strikes last always.

Posted by Legacy40k on 04/19/2006 11:00 AM
... I have a feeling it was in WD when they were explaining the changes from 3rd to 4th edition...

Nope. You're thinking of the Trial Assault Rules. At present time there is nothing to indicate that 'strikes first' is Initiative 10 or that 'strike last' is Initiative 1.

As the rules stand, a unit that 'strikes first' would do so before Initiative 10 and a unit that 'strikes last' would do so after Initiative 1.

This is a stupid argument.

"Doom Siren

A doom Siren is a complex arrangments of pipes and tubest that magnifies the war cry of the Chaos Space Marine to be a short range sonic attack. Instead of shooting with another weapon the wearer can make a shooting attack using the following profile:

  Range: Template Str 4 AP 5 Assault 1, no cover save

In close combat a model with a Doom Siren will always strike in Initiative sequence even if attacking enemy in cover as the waves of sonic energy confuse and repel them. Enemy who strike first regardless of initiative are unaffected."

When it says "Initiative sequence", it means just that. It's not saying "strikes first".

LOL at 4 pages of crap about what version of codex to use. Why not use the 3rd addition of 40k while your at it?

-I'm out

welll, poop! They muse not care about getting the latest codex here in the Midwest. Screw going to that gameshope for updated codexs.

S1ider,

The entire debate is based on the most recent printing of the Chaos Codex, the 3rd printing, which does indeed say "Strikes First" instead of the text that you just quoted.

"Strike in Initiative Sequence" does indeed fix the entire problem. Unfortunately, the most recent printing of the Chaos Codex drastically changed the way in which the Doom Siren works, and the bit about Initiative sequence no longer exists.

Man! S1ider, did you not read the entire thread before blasting away?

Anyway, we're still waiting for Agamemnon to tell us what printing he's got...

Ho! Sorry I was away for a few days on some buisness and kinda spaced out about this forum (if my head wern't attached to my shoulders I'd loose it)

v1 it seems as there isn't a actual print number on it. (Must have lived in the depths of the storeroom for a while in my store for it to still be that)

 

 

edit:  Take a look at the German site faq on the chaos codex, it states that the doomsiren allows models to always strike in initiative order.

Posted By blue loki on 04/20/2006 7:39 AM
S1ider,

The entire debate is based on the most recent printing of the Chaos Codex, the 3rd printing, which does indeed say "Strikes First" instead of the text that you just quoted.

"Strike in Initiative Sequence" does indeed fix the entire problem. Unfortunately, the most recent printing of the Chaos Codex drastically changed the way in which the Doom Siren works, and the bit about Initiative sequence no longer exists.

This is false... The quote S1ider gives is from the most current codex. I just went to the shoppe where I live and looked. They said this is the newest print of the newest edition.

The argument should be over, considering that people were previously quoting invalid editions of this armies codex (and falsly saying that it was current)..

Game over man

Game over

I have the 3rd printing at home. I am going to read it this evening. If wot S1ider sed is true I will let you know wot I think in regards to that.

Let's see - Blue Loki, speaking very eloquently and clearly as he usually does, says one thing, while two yokels, one who insults everyone and doesn't appear to read anything, and the other who relies upon an (unnamed) store owner's (seller's) statement without looking at the version, say another. Now, who do I believe... hmmmm.... ooohh, this is a tricky one...

Sorry, it's not even a statement by the store owner. Just some unnamed "they".

Often politicians are the ones who are the best able to express themselves. That in itself should serve as a warning to those wise enough.

Anyway, I really wonder why no one wants to take Agamemnon's (or mine, if anyone ever read my post on this topic some pages ago) argument into the discussion. There is an errata for the current (in fact any...) Chaos Codex / Doom Siren, it is indeed of more recent date than the 3rd reprint of the 'dex, it is from GW...

so what is it you all want? Someone mind to at least admit you are arguing just for the sake of having an argument? Pleaaase...

As it stands we are all very aware the issue cannot be solved directly without having some 'official' clarification on that matter. If you are selective which GW documents you accept then again, please at least post it right here!!

I'm a chaos player on my own so of course I'd like to see some of the chaos wargear having actually an impact on the game, other than giving me the ability to strike at my own initiative, except for the cases where it would be useful (e.g. against models who 'strike first'). Yes, I would very much like to see equipment that benefits me more than giving me some expensive alternative to fraggrenades that allows me to strike right after eldar/DE/Nids when charging into cover, instead of simultaniously *sigh*... still, trying to ignore valid arguments won't help the cause!
As always, sorry for the part that's OT, sometimes can't hold myself...

Wise words, BloodyT!

Errata from Germany? I refuse to be forced to learn every language that GW prints Codices in, just so I know what the rules are! The rules are so poorly written at this point, that there are entire armies that I have stopped working on, because I don't want to fight with everyone over the basic rules for the army! Naturally, if I've stopped working on it, I've stopped buying, so that hurts their sales (but helps my pocketbook!)

man this sux! I was told I had the latest edition. I called games workshop and had them tell me what it says and as it turns out......im given my butt handed to me as I HAVE THE 1ST EDITION. I JUST BAUGHT THIS THING NOT TOO LONG AGO AND NOW I HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER ONE. GOD!
He also said that powerfist will always strike last, too, if that amounts to anything here.
Man, im out of this one.

have fun with the rest of the discussion and I apoligize for holding this back.

ps, they need to update army builder too on this.

Antonin wrote:
Let's see - Blue Loki, speaking very eloquently and clearly as he usually does, says one thing, while two yokels, one who insults everyone and doesn't appear to read anything, and the other who relies upon an (unnamed) store owner's (seller's) statement without looking at the version, say another. Now, who do I believe... hmmmm.... ooohh, this is a tricky one...


Wow, just wow.

First I posted one comment on this topic. I stayed out of it simply because I know that there probably isnt' a RAW answer and like not to get headaches. And you act like I have been holding up the arguement. Bravo, bravo, buenisimo...
Freakin Genius.

'after his original post but before this current one'

I decided to actually look at the print, since the source was kinda shaky. The owner really likes comics and I doubt he actually has current anything (40k) on his shelves. I check and low and behold - outdated. I rush back to the comp to edit my post and apologize on how I could even consider trusting another individual on anything reguarding rules or RAW. but apparently I am the yokel.

Peace out, game over.

Yokel

I guess that will have to do for apologies from a couple of guys talkin' tough without reading (I guess?) the *entire* thread.

But really, the fault is all GW's, ultimately. Of course, those FAQs are due to be updated, any second...

Wise words, BloodyT!

I almost want to sig that.

My 2 cents...

The german website is an official source and the errata on that website states for the Doomsiren "... allows a model to strike in initiative order regardless of cover wargear, ect"

So on that official source a doomfister char would strike at I1.

Fortunantly there are people out there who can read the various languages (I'd bet all of them amoungst the lot of us) so we can bring all the different versions of the rules to the table. I'm willing to accept the German errata as cannon.

You'd think GW could put its most up to date stuff on its english sites, wouldn't you?

Hehe I would, but that would require that the things that GW does to make sense, and I'm not going to assume that on a company that doesn't read the rules it publishes =p