Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2016/11/16 16:50:02
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath? + Q: Fire Oil + Breath = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Omnipotent Lord of Change
|
Like it says on the tin. If I cast bane chant on a dude with the diadem of dragonkind, does his diadem breath attak get Piercing (1)?
I've seen some contradictory stuff here and there about whether bane chant works with magic item shooting / magic shooting, figured I'd ask directly!
- Salvage
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/28 15:39:19
|
|
|
|
2016/11/16 19:09:38
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Hunting Glade Guard
York, PA
|
Yes, bane chant works on any shooting/magic you use for that turn.
|
|
|
|
2016/11/16 20:27:55
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Omnipotent Lord of Change
|
I had hoped it was that simple, definitely cuts out a lot of caveats and corner cases that I'm used to The 'Hams relishing
Cheers!
- Salvage
|
|
|
|
|
2016/11/17 05:23:22
Subject: Re:Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Zealous Knight
|
The 2016 FAQ has this to say: Q: If a unit has Piercing, Blast or Reload! and then a magic artefact like the Diadem of Dragon-kind is added to the unit, do these rules apply to the ranged attack of the magic artefact? A: No. Piercing, Reload! and Blast all apply only to any attacks the units already possesses. The special rules on unit entries could have been clearer in conveying this (e.g. “Crossbows with Piercing (1) and Reload!”). Note that Vicious and Elite will still work with any artefacts.[
I'll go with no, unless specific ruling TBH. Why? well, bane-chant uses the same wording as Piercing ( all hits, yadayada) and this was Mantic's ruling on that wording when applied by the Piercing rule. Not a shining example of clear rules IMO, and TBH I'd be happy if this one was specifically FAQ'ed to work (especially since it's more fun and hardly game-breaking).
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/17 05:29:49
|
|
|
|
2016/11/17 08:37:32
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
|
Rules committee here: Bane chant does work on spells including breath attack.
The FAQ ruling is for an entirely different issue. Please try not to read more into what it says than it actually does :-)
|
|
|
|
2016/11/17 14:19:30
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Omnipotent Lord of Change
|
Daedleh wrote:Rules committee here: Bane chant does work on spells including breath attack.
The FAQ ruling is for an entirely different issue.
Hence my confusion researching this! My understanding is that the FAQ is addressing the awkward way that Mantic has described the abilities of ranged weapons a model comes with (i.e. a model's crossbow has Piercing(1), however the connection between the piercing and the weapon isn't clearly denoted in the unit's (very brief) profile).
Cheers you two.
- Salvage
|
|
|
|
|
2016/11/18 04:52:20
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Zealous Knight
|
Daedleh wrote:Rules committee here: Bane chant does work on spells including breath attack.
The FAQ ruling is for an entirely different issue. Please try not to read more into what it says than it actually does :-)
Could you please get that into the next FAQ then? You can claim I'm reading more into things but where I come from that's called linguistic consistency and it's one of the primary tools for interpreting rules and regulations where they are insufficiently clearly written.
Kindly stuff the sarcasm already. :-)
|
|
|
|
2016/11/19 00:39:16
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Posts with Authority
|
Bolognesus wrote: Daedleh wrote:Rules committee here: Bane chant does work on spells including breath attack.
The FAQ ruling is for an entirely different issue. Please try not to read more into what it says than it actually does :-)
Could you please get that into the next FAQ then? You can claim I'm reading more into things but where I come from that's called linguistic consistency and it's one of the primary tools for interpreting rules and regulations where they are insufficiently clearly written.
Kindly stuff the sarcasm already. :-) Not rules committee here, but what he described was exactly what the FAQ said - you are adding intent that was not anywhere present - so kindly stuff the counter-sarcasm, eh?
He could have been nicer, perhaps, but you were misreading a specific, properly addressed, reference, as a general reference. And it was pretty specific.
You were trying to read into what it says than it actually does.
The Auld Grump - my actual suspicion is that it came up as a point of contention for you in the past, so you were kind of attached to your interpretation, gods know, I have done similar things. And been snarky when challenged.
|
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along. |
|
|
|
2016/11/20 18:08:30
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
|
No sarcasm was intended, sorry if it came across that way. A lot of the rules misunderstandings we see come from people trying to read more from what we've written than what we actually have. Made on the assumption that we've made a mistake rather than us being very specific with our wording, e.g. "I know pathfinder only states difficult terrain but obviously they meant to include obstacles there."
|
|
|
|
2016/11/20 20:47:35
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Wait, so Pathfinder doesn't allow you to Doubletime across obstacles? Or ignore hindered charges because you passed over an obstacle?
Sorry, new player, and I think I misunderstood that part.
|
|
|
|
|
2016/11/21 08:21:57
Subject: Re:Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Pathfinder indeed has no effect on obstacles (if you want a rule that does, look at strider)
In theory one way to prevent this kind of condusion would be to explicitely mention the eception, like adding the phrase "Note that this has no effect on obstacles" to the pathfinder rule, but this has the problem of bloating the text when done again and again, as well as introducing later problems with other rules because you didn't add the same so of course it's a sign that the dev intented for your personnal interpretation.
Well, in theory it's possible to make it work if you use a very precise wording and/or present the exception in the context of examples so they are clearly not part of the rule itself, but once again you get the problem of bloating your rules
|
|
|
|
2016/11/24 10:45:19
Subject: Re:Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
|
jtrowell wrote:In theory one way to prevent this kind of condusion would be to explicitely mention the eception, like adding the phrase "Note that this has no effect on obstacles" to the pathfinder rule, but this has the problem of bloating the text when done again and again, as well as introducing later problems with other rules because you didn't add the same so of course it's a sign that the dev intented for your personnal interpretation.
This is pretty much it.
With Pathfinder, let's say we were to add another terrain type in a future expansion. If we'd specifically said that Pathfinder ignores difficult terrain, but also listed the exception of obstacles then we have a problem since the new terrain type isn't listed either way. We'd have to pad the new terrain rules out by adding a specific "Pathfinder units do not ignore this terrain" rule, which is rules bloat. We also have Strider so we'd probably have to specify that too and possibly Fly as well. I'm sure there might be another rule or two that I can't think of off the top of my head. We also run the risk of missing a rule that needs calling out with additional rules bloat in order to categorise the new terrain properly, so that's an FAQ item (not a biggie, but something that we'd rather avoid).
On the other hand, if we just make sure that we only list what is affected by the rule and not the exceptions, then any future expansions or new rules will always fall into the exceptions by default.
|
|
|
|
2017/02/24 17:24:18
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath?
|
|
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
Boss Salvage wrote:Like it says on the tin. If I cast bane chant on a dude with the diadem of dragonkind, does his diadem breath attak get Piercing (1)?
I've seen some contradictory stuff here and there about whether bane chant works with magic item shooting / magic shooting, figured I'd ask directly!
- Salvage
Sorry to come in a little late (just under the 3 month thread necromancy line ) but just wanted to say that this is a very "Salvage" maneuver
I'd love to hear how your KoW games are going, and what you're running!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 17:25:51
|
|
|
|
2017/02/28 15:23:15
Subject: Q: Fire Oil + Breath = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Omnipotent Lord of Change
|
Follow up question re:breath + items: Does fire oil work with breath attaks to gain Piercing (1) vs regen things? Admittedly I really struggle with what "'normal' ranged attaks' means ... RiTides wrote:I'd love to hear how your KoW games are going, and what you're running!
I've been painting a regiment-based Salamander / Fire Elemental army that's very close to being done - in fact tomorrow is my first time playing it at 2000 points! Exciting times. Also KOW is great. SPOILER EDIT: I think the answer is no, breath attak != 'normal' ranged attak. Still not sure what a 'normal' ranged attak is, but guessing it's 'an attak that uses the Ra stat'? - Salvage
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/28 19:56:36
|
|
|
|
2017/02/28 20:43:06
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath? + Q: Fire Oil + Breath = Piercing Breath?
|
|
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
Sounds cool, I saw a quick pic on FB but looking forward to seeing more
I think your interpretation is right, and it's the same reason units with breath weapons can't use the Jar of the Four Winds (because they're not "regular attacks"). That combo would've been just nuts with some breath units, so it makes sense... but defining "regular attacks" more clearly would definitely be appreciated!
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/28 20:45:49
|
|
|
|
2017/03/01 09:30:27
Subject: Q: Bane Chant + Diadem = Piercing Breath? + Q: Fire Oil + Breath = Piercing Breath?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I am almost sure that "normal ranged attacks" are defined somewhere, if not the ruleboook then maybe in the FAQ ?
In any case, while "ranged attack using Ra" is nice, I think that from memory the correct definition is something like "any ranged attack that is not a spell or a breath weapon".
Currently both definitions will probably give you the same results, but you never know what might be added in the future.
|
|
|
|
|