Hellblasters - any good?

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.

**Ice_can**

Primark G wrote:
Can you quote the relevant errata please?

This isn't new it is how everyones been playing it for all of 8th edition.
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

**fe40k**

Skhmt wrote:
It should be only modified 1s that explode.

With a -1 to hit, a roll of 2 explodes because it is now 1. A roll of 1 should not explode because it is a 0, and it doesn't say 1- nor "1 or less". The precedent of + hit rolls and Tesla or Taser attacks in Necrons and Ad Mech follow this logic, as they say they generate extra hits on 6+.

It also makes zero sense that shooting at night or at someone hard to see causes your weapon to malfunction more often.

By the plain text rule itself and by precedent, that is how it should work.

If there is a FAQ that says otherwise, I haven't seen it but it could exist.

It makes perfect sense. Your plasma gunner is shooting at a unit that's hard to hit; be it from camouflage, speed, darkness, etc - they end up needing to fire more shots/longer bursts to hit this target, and their gun ends up exploding more frequently because of it.

But here we are arguing logic in a fantasy/future universe that doesn't exist... and specifically doesn't adhere to the normal laws of reality.

Meanwhile; modified 1's overheat, modified 6+s trigger tesla, etc.

**Primark G**

Ice_can wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Can you quote the relevant errata please?

This isn't new it is how everyones been playing it for all of 8th edition.
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

I know but some posters were literally saying "... or something" and that is pathetic.

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?

A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

**Skhmt**

Does the designers commentary count as actual rulings? Because otherwise, it's inconsistent with how + hit modifiers work.

Does that mean we need the designers commentary, rulebook faq, big faq, chapter approved 2017, chapter approved faq, codex, and codex faq?

**Martel732**

Yes, you need all that to play. And yes, it is an actual ruling.

**p5freak**

I can't believe that there are players not knowing this. The designers commentary was released a year ago, or something like that.

**Martel732**

It's a pretty crappy way to FAQ the game, really. I'm always gentle when discussing GW's shenanigans.

**Skhmt**

p5freak wrote:
I can't believe that there are players not knowing this. The designers commentary was released a year ago, or something like that.

I took a break between 5th edition and 8th, I just started again maybe a month ago. My bad for not being omniscient.

The fact that you need 3 different online supplements just for the rulebook is counter intuitive. It should have been FAQ'd into the main rules.

**p5freak**

Skhmt wrote:
Does the designers commentary count as actual rulings? Because otherwise, it's inconsistent with how + hit modifiers work.

Does that mean we need the designers commentary, rulebook faq, big faq, chapter approved 2017, chapter approved faq, codex, and codex faq?

You need everything from here (click 40k) : https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/

**tneva82**

Skhmt wrote:
p5freak wrote:
I can't believe that there are players not knowing this. The designers commentary was released a year ago, or something like that.

I took a break between 5th edition and 8th, I just started again maybe a month ago. My bad for not being omniscient.

The fact that you need 3 different online supplements just for the rulebook is counter intuitive. It should have been FAQ'd into the main rules.

Well GW doesn't design things well. Which is how we get this ridiculously illogical system where 1-3 can kill you.

Don't forget you also need their FB posts and comments as well to be sure you are up to the date with rules. Frankly I have no idea am I up to date since I don't keep active eye on their FB side so who knows how many changes and clarifications I have missed.

**bort**

It is rather silly. I opened up the document titled Designer Commentary expecting to find things like "We decided to remove Initiative from the game because..." not game rules.

**gkos**

To be honest, I'm aware of this ruling, but it's so much simpler to just apply the bonuses and penalties to natural rolls.

I only ever play casual games, and mostly with young players who are new to the game, it makes the games easier to read and play, and lets not mention overwatch

oh no.. I mentioned overwatch.