Switch Theme:

Spore Mine detonation technically has infinite range?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in gb
Norn Queen






Consider the following scenario:

I have 3 spore mines, A B and C, located 3.1" away from Primaris Intercessor Adam and 6000" away from Primaris Intercessor Bartholomew, these are the only models on the board.

I charge the Primaris Intercessor with all 3 mines, surviving overwatch, and rolling a 3+ for each mine. The mines then go within 1" of Primaris Intercessor Adam.

The "Floating Death" rule now kicks in. Quoted for the purposes of rules discussion:
Page 99 Codex: Tyranids wrote:Floating Death: A Spore Mine explodes if it is within 3" of any enemy units at the end of any Charge phase. Each time a Spore Mine explodes, roll a D6; on a 1 it fails to inflict any harm, on a 2-5 it inflicts 1 mortal wound on the nearest enemy unit, and on a 6 it inflicts D3 mortal wounds on that unit. The Spore Mine is then destroyed.
The key issue here is they they trigger "if it is within 3" of any unit" vs causing the wound "on the nearest enemy unit". Those are not necessarily the same thing. Since all three trigger simultaneously, the sequencing rules tell us to resolve them one at a time.

I resolve Spore Mine A, and it causes a Mortal Wound to Adam. I resolve Spore Mine B, and it causes a Mortal Wound to Adam, slaying him.

Spore Mine C now has a rule saying it has exploded, since it was within 3" of a model at the end of the charge phase. It now resolves, rolling a 6, then a 3 on the D3, causing a Mortal Wound "on the nearest enemy unit". Since Adam is dead, the Nearest Enemy Unit is now Bartholomew, even though he's 600" away. Thus the Spore Mine should now cause 3 Mortal Wounds to Bartholomew, despite him being 6000" away.

Am I right in thinking this or have I missed something? I am pretty sure the rule is supposed to cause the wound to the unit that "triggered it" but I feel that the rule doesn't do this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/31 21:29:52


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut



Denmark

Isen't "at the start of the charge phase" before you even declare charges?

3000 point  
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






FunJohn wrote:
Isen't "at the start of the charge phase" before you even declare charges?
They detonate at the end.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Seems like you measure for a spore mine, if it is within 3" you follow its sequence and it explodes. Then you measure the next one, and see if that explodes etc.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 DeathReaper wrote:
Seems like you measure for a spore mine, if it is within 3" you follow its sequence and it explodes. Then you measure the next one, and see if that explodes etc.
Except that isn't what the rule says whatsoever, as I detailed in my post.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

This isn’t new news, has been posited/discussed before in YMDC, and (quelle surprise) revolves around an unreasonable, obviously unintended reading of a rule... I’m not exactly shocked.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader




[Shudder] BCB is... Correct.

This has come up often before. It's not often relevant, but it has yet to be FAQ'd to something sensible like 'The closest unit within 3 inches.'

Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Yes, they all explode at the end of the charge phase if they are within 3".

You then roll for them, one at a time to see what they do.

If you kill everything nearbye with the first 2-4 spore mines, the remaining mines that blew up effectively act like smites, hitting the next closest model.


This is why a squad of Meiotic spores is a bit overpowered atm. 6 of them getting a charge off is pretty damn deadly. granted they are 18 points apiece for suicide models.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Seems like you measure for a spore mine, if it is within 3" you follow its sequence and it explodes. Then you measure the next one, and see if that explodes etc.
Except that isn't what the rule says whatsoever, as I detailed in my post.

It is though, your post has flaws. Namely once you check if a single spore mine is in range, you have to resolve its effects due to sequencing before you can measure to see if any others are close enough.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The biggest snaggu with this interpretation though, is that it ignores the end of the rule.

It says you roll to see what the damage is and inflict it upon "that" unit.


Its fair to say that "that" unit is the one the spore mine was within 3" of, which would mean that even though mortal wounds do roll over to models, they wouldn't roll over to other units.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Except that unit is the nearest mentioned phrase before.

Q is do you mearure distances whether triggered simultaneously while resolving effects non-simultaneosly. That's only scenario where this works. If range is checked after previous done doesn't work, if all explode simultaneously doesn't work

https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2019/09/12/tneva82-minas-tirith-vs-isengard/ <- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
3225 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
[Shudder] BCB is... Correct.

This has come up often before. It's not often relevant, but it has yet to be FAQ'd to something sensible like 'The closest unit within 3 inches.'


As it’s been covered before I’m not sure why it needed an attention-seeking post, but hey, quiet month for rules gaps I guess...

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




Please leave my town.

It's obviously silly and unintended, but only because Bartholomew is ludicrously far away in the example (you should totally post photos of your awesome 500 foot gaming table, BCB ). If the OP had stated Bartholomew was only 4" away from the spore mine, I'm pretty sure quite a few people would consider it a perfectly reasonable interpretation. You might easily expect a mine's blast radius to be larger than its detection/trigger radius.

"Everyone in 40K is wrong." - ADB 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






All they had to do was make it say "the nearest unit within 3" " and none of this would be a problem.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Anacortes

In your scenario Adam is the unit they are closest to and within the 3 inch bubble. The trigger /ability that allows you to explode and do damage is the 3 inch caveat. It cannot nor would hurt even something 4 inches away. It’s within three. If it’s gone , ie Adam, then the rest of the mortal wounds are lost.

Honestly I doubt it gets a Faq, but I’m betting GW writers are laughing .

In a dog eat dog be a cat. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Lungpickle wrote:
In your scenario Adam is the unit they are closest to and within the 3 inch bubble. The trigger /ability that allows you to explode and do damage is the 3 inch caveat. It cannot nor would hurt even something 4 inches away. It’s within three. If it’s gone , ie Adam, then the rest of the mortal wounds are lost.

Honestly I doubt it gets a Faq, but I’m betting GW writers are laughing .
Except, like I pointed out, the "unit they are closest to" is not the same as the unit that triggered the mine. The "unit they are closest to" is only checked after it's detonated.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lungpickle wrote:
In your scenario Adam is the unit they are closest to and within the 3 inch bubble. The trigger /ability that allows you to explode and do damage is the 3 inch caveat. It cannot nor would hurt even something 4 inches away. It’s within three. If it’s gone , ie Adam, then the rest of the mortal wounds are lost.

Honestly I doubt it gets a Faq, but I’m betting GW writers are laughing .
Except, like I pointed out, the "unit they are closest to" is not the same as the unit that triggered the mine. The "unit they are closest to" is only checked after it's detonated.

Except you check if mine 1 is in range then follow the rules for exploding. Then you check mine 2, etc.

You don't check Mine's 1 through 10 for range then follow the section about exploding.

Alternatively, if you consider a dead unit in range for the 3" detonation, then you must also consider that unit as a closer unit than the one 600" away.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






JakeSiren wrote:

Except you check if mine 1 is in range then follow the rules for exploding. Then you check mine 2, etc.

You don't check Mine's 1 through 10 for range then follow the section about exploding.

Alternatively, if you consider a dead unit in range for the 3" detonation, then you must also consider that unit as a closer unit than the one 600" away.
Except you don't check for each mine individually. They all check simultaneously at the end of the charge phase. You can't check one after another because then you'd be breaking the rule about checking at the end of the phase. The sequencing rule then kicks in.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/01 22:43:56


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:

Except you check if mine 1 is in range then follow the rules for exploding. Then you check mine 2, etc.

You don't check Mine's 1 through 10 for range then follow the section about exploding.

Alternatively, if you consider a dead unit in range for the 3" detonation, then you must also consider that unit as a closer unit than the one 600" away.
Except you don't check for each mine individually. They all check simultaneously at the end of the charge phase. You can't check one after another because then you'd be breaking the rule about checking at the end of the phase. The sequencing rule then kicks in.

Technically you do. You chose the order of resolution for the multiple instances of "Floating Death": which includes checking range when you go to resolve that instance.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






JakeSiren wrote:
Technically you do. You chose the order of resolution for the multiple instances of "Floating Death": which includes checking range when you go to resolve that instance.
It doesn't have to be within 3" when it resolves, only at the end of the phase. The end of the phase is simultaneous for all 3 mines. That's the whole reason why this works the way it does.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/01 22:50:08


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
Technically you do. You chose the order of resolution for the multiple instances of "Floating Death": which includes checking range when you go to resolve that instance.
It doesn't have to be within 3" when it resolves, only at the end of the phase. The end of the phase is simultaneous for all 3 mines. That's the whole reason why this works the way it does.

Um, except if you do so you are only partially resolving each instance of the rule. I've quoted the rule below and bolded the part you are trying to partially resolve before resolving the rest.
Page 99 Codex: Tyranids wrote:Floating Death: A Spore Mine explodes if it is within 3" of any enemy units at the end of any Charge phase. Each time a Spore Mine explodes, roll a D6; on a 1 it fails to inflict any harm, on a 2-5 it inflicts 1 mortal wound on the nearest enemy unit, and on a 6 it inflicts D3 mortal wounds on that unit. The Spore Mine is then destroyed.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Read the sequencing rules. Each spore mine is attempting to resolve simultaneously, but the sequencing rules tell you to resolve them one at a time. The mine has already "gone off" despite it being resolved after the other 2, so it doesn't matter there aren't any models left when it resolves because there WERE models at the end of the charge phase.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in mx
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All they had to do was make it say "the nearest unit within 3" " and none of this would be a problem.

It would bring a different problem, as it would make it possible for Spore Mines to find themselves out of range as they detonate. The initial condition may be simultaneous, but resolving the damage is not.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Tyran wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
All they had to do was make it say "the nearest unit within 3" " and none of this would be a problem.

It would bring a different problem, as it would make it possible for Spore Mines to find themselves out of range as they detonate. The initial condition may be simultaneous, but resolving the damage is not.
That's the entire point of my proposed change. It's meant to make them detonate, but not cause any damage, if they find themselves too far away from a unit at the time they resolve the damage. Next time don't charge the poor guardsmen with 67 Spore Mines eh?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 00:02:03


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in mx
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Tyran wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
All they had to do was make it say "the nearest unit within 3" " and none of this would be a problem.

It would bring a different problem, as it would make it possible for Spore Mines to find themselves out of range as they detonate. The initial condition may be simultaneous, but resolving the damage is not.
That's the entire point of my proposed change. It's meant to make them detonate, but not cause any damage, if they find themselves too far away from a unit at the time they resolve the damage.

I especify, it would mean they may find themselves out of range of the unit that triggered them in the first place.

Spore Mines are hardly some top performing unit to deserve such nerf, because it would be a nerf.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 00:06:39


 
   
Made in us
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Read the sequencing rules. Each spore mine is attempting to resolve simultaneously, but the sequencing rules tell you to resolve them one at a time. The mine has already "gone off" despite it being resolved after the other 2, so it doesn't matter there aren't any models left when it resolves because there WERE models at the end of the charge phase.


I'm not sure I got the same thing from the sequencing rules that you did. Simultaneous events can be resolved in any order that the player whose turn it is chooses, but that doesn't mean they can be half resolved and interrupted and resumed arbitrarily. Your interpretation requires splitting up Floating Death rules, when sequencing rules tell you to resolve rules one at a time.


- Floating Death Instance 1 - 1st half of rules to check
- Floating Death Instance 2 - 1st half of rules to check
- Floating Death Instance 3 - 1st half of rules to check
- Maybe some other stuff happens "at end of charge phase"
- Floating Death Instance 1 - 2nd half of rules to explode
- Floating Death Instance 2 - 2nd half of rules to explode
- Floating Death Instance 3 - 2nd half of rules to explode

VS

- Floating Death Instance 1, check and explode
- Floating Death Instance 2, check and explode
- Floating Death Instance 3, check and explode

Just because both rules are called Floating Death doesn't mean that they get any special ability to interleave their resolution. They still go 1 at a time.

And if you're trying to say that the rule specifies the 'check' occurs at the end of charge phase but that the explosion occurs at some indeterminate time in the future ... when exactly does the explosion occur if not immediately during Floating Death rule resolution? No really. If you try to say the explosion resolution is "not at the end of charge phase, nor during the Floating Death rule, but some later time eventually", well the end of turn 6 is also 'eventually' and I'm fine with zero spore mines ever getting to explode.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 06:45:18


 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

It’s yet another misapplication of Sequencing to generate a stupid effect. It’s pretty obvious the Spores are intended to only hit a unit within 3” and if no enemy are left wishing 3” after resolving a few splosions any remaining exploding Spores just explode and do nowt... but this is the internet where common sense is dead, so it doesn’t stop someone trying to manipulate RAW to claim a weapon has infinite range. Not sure why it’s suddenly been brought up again as new info, given people have already tilted at this windmill in other threads.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 BaconCatBug wrote:
Read the sequencing rules. Each spore mine is attempting to resolve simultaneously, but the sequencing rules tell you to resolve them one at a time. The mine has already "gone off" despite it being resolved after the other 2, so it doesn't matter there aren't any models left when it resolves because there WERE models at the end of the charge phase.


Then comes question is damage resolved simultaneously like say when unit shoots at which point your idea doesn't work

https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2019/09/12/tneva82-minas-tirith-vs-isengard/ <- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
3225 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





tneva82 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Read the sequencing rules. Each spore mine is attempting to resolve simultaneously, but the sequencing rules tell you to resolve them one at a time. The mine has already "gone off" despite it being resolved after the other 2, so it doesn't matter there aren't any models left when it resolves because there WERE models at the end of the charge phase.


Then comes question is damage resolved simultaneously like say when unit shoots at which point your idea doesn't work


That's not how you resolve damage when a unit shoots no, you allocate wounds one at a time.

The base rule is to do each weapon one by one all the way from hit roll to damage even. There are of course fast rolling rules that allow you to do everything up to wound allocation simultaneously, but ONLY if doing so has no effect on the game compared to rolling one by one.

Even if you could apply fast rolling to this situation (which you can't as it's not a shooting attack and the models are separate units), this would be a situation where fast rolling changed the effect and so you wouldn't be able to use it and would have to resolve the entire ability one at a time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 10:23:57


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s yet another misapplication of Sequencing to generate a stupid effect. It’s pretty obvious the Spores are intended to only hit a unit within 3” and if no enemy are left wishing 3” after resolving a few splosions any remaining exploding Spores just explode and do nowt... but this is the internet where common sense is dead, so it doesn’t stop someone trying to manipulate RAW to claim a weapon has infinite range. Not sure why it’s suddenly been brought up again as new info, given people have already tilted at this windmill in other threads.


I have to say though: I'd rather have an occasional mine explode 4 or 5 inches into the next unit instead of frequently having them go off but do nothing. Because if you limit it to 3 inches, the defender will just pull from the front and after 1 or two explosions there's no longer a unit within 3.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: