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.

I was enjoying a pick up game against a Slaanesh themed Chaos Space Marine force, when he declared his Power Fist was going to strike at Initiative 2. This made a big difference as I was using a friends Necron army, and warriors are initiative 2.

I argued that the Mark of Slaanesh applied to the model, and then the unwieldy weapon made his attack Initiative 1, while he argued that the Mark of Slaanesh raised the initiative of the attack with the unwieldy weapon to Initiative 2.

Thoughts?

A model attacking with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1, unless it is a Monstrous Creature or a Walker.
- Unwieldy

This Rule forces the Model to fight during Initiative Step 1, regardless of the Initiative Characteristic on the Profile.
A Rule modifying the Initiative Characteristic will have no noticeable affect when using Weapons with the Unwieldy Special Rule.

JinxDragon wrote:
A model attacking with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1, unless it is a Monstrous Creature or a Walker.
- Unwieldy

This Rule forces the Model to fight during Initiative Step 1, regardless of the Initiative Characteristic on the Profile.
A Rule modifying the Initiative Characteristic will have no noticeable affect when using Weapons with the Unwieldy Special Rule.

Add this to the rule regarding Multiple Modifiers that applies Additive rule (Slaanesh) before Set Values (Unwieldy), leaving the Set Value as the final value, and you have the final value set to Initiative 1.

There are some exceptions to this (Markerlights over Snap Fire), but they are explicit in mentioning them.

If Unwieldy or Snap Shooting where set modifier that would be correct, but where do they inform us to change any characteristics on the Profile itself?

Snap shot and Unwieldy, as well as a handful of other Rules like them, may seem like Set Modifiers because end results appear identical. Yet the noticeable differences in how we get to those results, and how they interact in situations where both Set to and Resolve as are present, marks them as something greater then Set Modifiers. Set Modifiers require us to change the Characteristic while the method of resolving the situation remains unchanged, we are using the default Rules but the new Profile. Rules like Unwieldy ignore what is on the Profile and often modify the default Rules that govern the situation, simply by having us obey a set of alternative instructions that conflict with the default. It does not matter if the 'resolve as' Rule is as simple as providing us the exact Initiative Step to use, or as complicated as telling us to throw out the entire To Hit portion of the shooting sequence in order to replace it with Scatter Dice, it is still a situation where the resolution must match the alternative instructions.

This is why a model can have a dozen way's to change the initiative Characteristic to 10, if it is forced to fight at Step 1 then it can only obey the Rule by fighting at Step 1.

JinxDragon wrote:
If Unwieldy or Snap Shooting where set modifier that would be correct, but where do they inform us to change any characteristics on the Profile itself?

Snap shot and Unwieldy, as well as a handful of other Rules like them, may seem like Set Modifiers because end results appear identical. Yet the noticeable differences in how we get to those results, and how they interact in situations where both Set to and Resolve as are present, marks them as something greater then Set Modifiers. Set Modifiers require us to change the Characteristic while the method of resolving the situation remains unchanged, we are using the default Rules but the new Profile. Rules like Unwieldy ignore what is on the Profile and often modify the default Rules that govern the situation, simply by having us obey a set of alternative instructions that conflict with the default. It does not matter if the 'resolve as' Rule is as simple as providing us the exact Initiative Step to use, or as complicated as telling us to throw out the entire To Hit portion of the shooting sequence in order to replace it with Scatter Dice, it is still a situation where the resolution must match the alternative instructions.

This is why a model can have a dozen way's to change the initiative Characteristic to 10, if it is forced to fight at Step 1 then it can only obey the Rule by fighting at Step 1.

Yes, Snap Fire and Unwieldy are temporary and not "always on", but that doesn't mean for the situations they describe, they do not Modify a Characteristic.
And yes, they both set them to a specific number, which is what is meant by a "set value".

And of course we need to read the situations as they come up in the Rules. I did not say otherwise. But in those cases they do not specify, that is what the General Principles and Basic Rules are for.

I think what Jinx is trying to say is that Unwieldy is not a modifier at all. It does not modify or change the initiative characteristic of the model even temporarily. It does not "set" the initiative to 1. It specifies a time, not a value, in which the model may perform its attack(s), regardless of the model's initiative value.

The difference is that modifiers can never affect Unwieldy. For instance if a model had a piece of wargear that set his initiative at 10, or gave him +1 Initiative after modifiers, an Unwieldy model would STILL attack at the initiative 1 step.

Where in Unwieldy does it mention changing the Models Initiative Characteristics?

Snap Shots contain a psudo-modifier within, where it informs us to count the Model's Ballistic Score as 1, but the whole Rule is far more complicated then simply being a set-modifier.

JinxDragon wrote:
Where in Unwieldy does it mention changing the Models Initiative Characteristics?

For Piling In and Attacking. The I stat is used for this. It changes the number you use for this action.

JinxDragon wrote:
Snap Shots contain a psudo-modifier within, where it informs us to count the Model's Ballistic Score as 1, but the whole Rule is far more complicated then simply being a set-modifier.

I didn't say it wasn't complicated. It's not as simple as a Power Maul, that's for sure. Doesn't change the fact that the BS is changed for a short time. And "counts as" is part of what indicates that short time frame. It is not a permanent change, just very temporary, and for the actions described.

Slaanesh CSM vs Necrons

Let him have it lol

Charistoph wrote:
For Piling In and Attacking. The I stat is used for this. It changes the number you use for this action.

Unless a special rule's effect states otherwise - like Unwieldy does. Instead of attacking and piling in at the attacker's initiative step (like normal), Unwieldy forces the model to attack at the initiative 1 step. It doesn't set the model's initiative to 1.

Comparison - If a shooting attack has a special rule that says it always hits on a 3+, it doesn't change the firer's Ballistic skill to 4. It simply overrides the normal "to hit" process. Similarly, if a rule says a model's attacks always occur at the initiative 1 step, it doesn't change the model's initiative to 1, it simply overrides the normal combat timing process.

Charistoph,
We are starting to approach the whole 'Count as =/= Is' argument with the 'Counts as Ballistic Score 1' clause being a Set Modifier.
As wonderful as it would be to open that argument again, let us simply accept that the end result is identical regardless which interpretation you follow and move on?

As for the whole Unwieldy situation:
By providing us with alternative instructions, we are required to ignore the default instructions... do you believe this to be true?

The argument that Unwieldy trumps Set Modifiers relies on the concept that Unwieldy is an alternative set of instructions and not also a Set Modifier. By providing us with specific instructions on when to attack, we no longer use the previous instructions that requiring us to calculate when the Model would attack. This allows both Rules to be obeyed, the Set Modifier is applied during the appropriate point in the sequence before we use the set of instructions within Unwieldy to determine which Initiative Step that particular Model will be attacking at.


Situation in point:
A Model has a rule that specifically sets the Initiative Characteristic to 10 for the duration of an attack
That attacking Player intends to use a weapon with the Unwieldy Special Rule during that Model's attack
What prevents the attacking Player from using Sequencing to swing during Initiative Step 10?

Unwieldy weapons always strike last.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Unwieldy weapons always strike last.

Not quite. They always strike at Initiative step 1.

If a weapon or model actually still had a rule that says that if strikes last, it would go after the initiative 1 step.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Unwieldy weapons always strike last.

Not quite. They always strike at Initiative step 1.

If a weapon or model actually still had a rule that says that if strikes last, it would go after the initiative 1 step.

Like the effects of concussive?

Edit: I could have sworn that thunder hammers forced you to go after I1 ... I remember reading this some time ago.

Concussive reduces the affected model's Initiative to 1 until the end of the following Assault phase