Switch Theme:

the minus 1 for damage foe warsuits and celestine.  [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 us
Been Around the Block






Is it miss type and I should play it as min of 1? or should I play it as it is printed?

Also, In rules of charging and attacking. Can you meele through walls with dreadnots? I had a squad of normal sisters in on one side of the build and opponent had dreadnots on the other side. Walls had windows, so dreadnots could see them. Could they engage in hand to hand combat on the other side?

40k Army: Sisters of Battle. 'With Flamer,bolter and Melta do we purge unclean Enemies. With power armor do we turn aside their cruellest blows. With doctine and with Strategy do we win our battles. Yet it is Faith, Sisters, and faith alone that we shall conquer this sinful galaxy.' - Junith Eruita

Aos: Sylvanith, Daughters of khaine, Deepkin, Nighthaunt, Slannesh.  
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

General opinion is that there should be a minimum of 1 damage but it's an oversight. If someone tries to pull that stunt, say they have to pay 240pts per Paragon as per RAW.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Valkyrie wrote:
General opinion is that there should be a minimum of 1 damage but it's an oversight. If someone tries to pull that stunt, say they have to pay 240pts per Paragon as per RAW.


This is the correct response

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Yarium wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
General opinion is that there should be a minimum of 1 damage but it's an oversight. If someone tries to pull that stunt, say they have to pay 240pts per Paragon as per RAW.


This is the correct response


Good deal for the lists (100% of them) that have celestine and no paragons
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, the paragons aren't a problem since they also cost 240 points a model. So there's a clear compromise where they cost the 80 points they're obviously supposed to, and also don't ignore D1, as they're obviously not supposed to.

Celestine ignoring D1 is a problem, as unfortunately since GW can't do proofreading, that is what she does RAW.

I would very much like to think nobody would actually try to play her that way, and no TO would actually allow it...but half of TOs allowed 10 point reavers, despite that obviously being a typo that wasn't even present in the other language versions. So my faith in the common sense of TOs is at an all time low right now.

On the meleeing through walls thing, there is no rule against it - and whether it has windows doesn't matter either, you don't need to be able to draw LOS to fight in melee, only to shoot. As long as the wall is thin enough that the model can get w/in engagement range, it's allowed under the rules. This is why you'll commonly hear people saying "my intent is to place these models so they're more than 1" from the other side of the wall."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 15:21:12


 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Didn't realise Celestine got that rule as well now. Honestly if someone tried to play that against me I'd just pack my stuff up, they're obviously *that* desperate for the win.

   
Made in us
Been Around the Block






yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the paragons aren't a problem since they also cost 240 points a model. So there's a clear compromise where they cost the 80 points they're obviously supposed to, and also don't ignore D1, as they're obviously not supposed to.

Celestine ignoring D1 is a problem, as unfortunately since GW can't do proofreading, that is what she does RAW.

I would very much like to think nobody would actually try to play her that way, and no TO would actually allow it...but half of TOs allowed 10 point reavers, despite that obviously being a typo that wasn't even present in the other language versions. So my faith in the common sense of TOs is at an all time low right now.

On the meleeing through walls thing, there is no rule against it - and whether it has windows doesn't matter either, you don't need to be able to draw LOS to fight in melee, only to shoot. As long as the wall is thin enough that the model can get w/in engagement range, it's allowed under the rules. This is why you'll commonly hear people saying "my intent is to place these models so they're more than 1" from the other side of the wall."


I like to get the rule s right. I have only won a game out like hundred. But I love playing more than anything. So I will play with -1 with min of 1. With celestine and warsuits.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Didn't realise Celestine got that rule as well now. Honestly if someone tried to play that against me I'd just pack my stuff up, they're obviously *that* desperate for the win.


I am not going play her like that I will be doing with min of 1.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 16:39:48


40k Army: Sisters of Battle. 'With Flamer,bolter and Melta do we purge unclean Enemies. With power armor do we turn aside their cruellest blows. With doctine and with Strategy do we win our battles. Yet it is Faith, Sisters, and faith alone that we shall conquer this sinful galaxy.' - Junith Eruita

Aos: Sylvanith, Daughters of khaine, Deepkin, Nighthaunt, Slannesh.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




That's definitely the right call from a moral point of view.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Xfrawg wrote:

Also, In rules of charging and attacking. Can you meele through walls with dreadnots? I had a squad of normal sisters in on one side of the build and opponent had dreadnots on the other side. Walls had windows, so dreadnots could see them. Could they engage in hand to hand combat on the other side?
You do not need Line of Sight to make melee attacks.

The models on the ground floor of a ruin can attack vertically through the ceiling to hit models they can not see, that are on the second floor if the models are in range right?

Why would attacking horizontally be any different?

As long as your model's base is close enough to be engaged with an enemy, you can both make melee attacks even if you can not see each other.


"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
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

The right call is to wait for the faq and not play them till then because as a 720pt unit they suck.

You do not need los to melee attack
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Yarium wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
General opinion is that there should be a minimum of 1 damage but it's an oversight. If someone tries to pull that stunt, say they have to pay 240pts per Paragon as per RAW.


This is the correct response


Which is a trade I will take any day of the week. Celestine ignoring D1 is WAY better than paragons ignoring D1, even if they stayed 80.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Abel





Washington State

I've been told by people that use the Warhammer App that the Paragon Warsuits have been changed to 240 points with the "/model" removed. I've read its different in the non-English Codexes too.

For the -1 damage ability, it looks like GW just left off the "[to a minimum of 1 damage]" that is used on all other similar rules.

GW really knows how to stick it to players, eh? You purchase bespoke items and bespoke prices, and then find errors like this almost immediately. For once I'd love to see a Codex that did not require Day 0 FAQ/Errata.

For attacking through walls- 9th edition has an entire chapter of rules now devoted to terrain. See pgs. 262-269 in the Core Rule Book. Only terrain features with Defense Line allow you to fight "through" it. That's why you have to have a conversation with your opponent before the game begins about what terrain rules are being applied to each piece of terrain. You have to be careful with Defense line though. It changes the engagement range and the eligible models that can fight distance.

Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Nah, you can fight "through" any terrain, it's just that only defense lines change to engagement range to do so. With other terrain, you still can fight "through" it just fine as long as it's thin enough that you can get w/in engagement range of the enemy model on the opposite side.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

yukishiro1 wrote:
Nah, you can fight "through" any terrain, it's just that only defense lines change to engagement range to do so. With other terrain, you still can fight "through" it just fine as long as it's thin enough that you can get w/in engagement range of the enemy model on the opposite side.


Defense line doesnt change engagement range, its still the same. It gives you permission to fight at 2" away, but you arent in engagement range. This means you can shoot the enemy unit with any unit, even that one that is 2" away, with all guns, because you arent in engagement range. You can do anything you can do normally.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 16:00:34


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Codex Adepta Sororitas FAQ: Indomitus Version 1.0 has been posted

Page 108 – Paragon Warsuits, Abilities, Paragon Warsuit
Change to read:
‘Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of that attack (to a minimum of 1).’

Page 124 – Points Values, Paragon Warsuits

Change ‘240pts/model’ to ‘240pt

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





 Valkyrie wrote:
Didn't realise Celestine got that rule as well now. Honestly if someone tried to play that against me I'd just pack my stuff up, they're obviously *that* desperate for the win.


I find this response fascinating. Is reducing damage by 1 with no minimum that strong? It's very realistic that an ability like that gets printed at some point. Just because it doesn't fit into the common wording of the rule thus far shouldn't illicit such a wild response from the community.

I mean ya I thought it was an oversight too but I believed the unit to be horrible either way. People are just so ready to scream bloody murder when new design space gets explored.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/19 15:49:05


hey what time is it?

"Try looking on page 12 of the FAQ."

-Ghaz 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Aijec wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Didn't realise Celestine got that rule as well now. Honestly if someone tried to play that against me I'd just pack my stuff up, they're obviously *that* desperate for the win.


I find this response fascinating. Is reducing damage by 1 with no minimum that strong? It's very realistic that an ability like that gets printed at some point. Just because it doesn't fit into the common wording of the rule thus far shouldn't illicit such a wild response from the community.

I mean ya I thought it was an oversight too but I believed the unit to be horrible either way. People are just so ready to scream bloody murder when new design space gets explored.


Being immune to any D1 weapon might be "new design space" , but still a horrible idea. That's why people assumed this would be fixed.
Honestly, in a case like that I'd assume a mistake by default, because otherwise I'd expected them to point out that yes, this may reduce damage to 0 - to make it clear that this is intentional.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Being completely immune to all "infantry" weapons is terrible games design. Hence why it was assumed to be - and was - a mistake.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

I mean they only did that in all of sixth and seventh
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

U02dah4 wrote:
I mean they only did that in all of sixth and seventh
Vehicles weren’t just infantry with lots of wounds and a high toughness then too.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02dah4 wrote:
I mean they only did that in all of sixth and seventh

You mean all of 3rd to 7th, to be a little more accurate.
And when they explicitly stated in multiple commentaries, that the point of 8th then 9th change in design was to allow anything to have a chance of hurting everything, you don't have a point.

(Av and AP, alongside the various vehicle damage tables, were awful for games design, as well. But still better than fantasy with Strength playing the part of both ability to damage and armour save reduction )
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

I can't comment pre 6th as I hadn't started

I have a point there's precedent

And it wouldn't be the first time GW said they were doing something and did the opposite

My point is always stick to the raw we don't know what they want if they change it by faq that's fine but I don't like it therefore it's wrong is no argument

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/21 12:43:11


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

U02dah4 wrote:
My point is always stick to the raw we don't know what they want if they change it by faq that's fine but I don't like it therefore it's wrong is no argument


Ancient point of discussion. Yes, we don't know. But we can assume, and try to guess the intent.

"Always stick to the raw" is not a good policy when things like 240ppm Paragon warsuits are obvious mistakes where everyone could safely assume that the intent was 240points per unit of 3, for example.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Nope, I'll play my game in a way that we both enjoy.
I take it you never advanced and fired assault weapons in 8th?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Stick to the raw was a perfect policy there was nothing wrong with 240pt paragon war suits they just sucked

You follow RAW unless RAW doesn't work assault weapons in 7th RAW doesn't work so you go to rai


This in 9th worked on both counts it just didn't do what you wanted

Any time you guess and claim some insight into intent the counter is someone saying that wasn't the intent. Intent is something you can't know objectively.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/21 19:47:39


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

So what does it say that both the 240 PPM and the no minimum on -1 damage were errata’d?

You cannot know, with 100% certainty, the intent. You can make pretty good guesses, though.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yep, turns out that everyone knew and so did GW that they got it wrong.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Do we need to beat this poor, tired, dead horse yet again?

Obvious mistakes are obvious and being dogmatic for internet points impresses no one.

The question has also been answered by the FAQ so any bickering over RAI and RAW is off topic.

 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
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what does it say that both the 240 PPM and the no minimum on -1 damage were errata’d?

You cannot know, with 100% certainty, the intent. You can make pretty good guesses, though.


That it was erratad so the RAW has been changed

You can guess but if the raw functions guessing is irrelevant

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/21 23:54:11


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

U02dah4 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So what does it say that both the 240 PPM and the no minimum on -1 damage were errata’d?

You cannot know, with 100% certainty, the intent. You can make pretty good guesses, though.


That it was erratad so the RAW has been changed

You can guess but if the raw functions guessing is irrelevant
At a tournament? Sure, if the TO says "RAW or die."

For a game at the local store? Why be RAW or die?

Edit: I'm not saying to disregard any rules you don't like-but when something is both clearly a mistake AND the fix is obvious... Fix it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/22 00:32:01


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: