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.

Kallbrand wrote:The NS rule specifies a situation where it has S8... wich is only when you roll to wound vs ld.

Nothing about any other situation, as ID or anything else.

Quoted for truth. This is the RAW. If you think otherwise, you don't know how to read RAW. It's that simple.

ColonelEllios wrote:
Instant Death says: "When wounded by a weapon with strength double toughness..."

Just to pop in here, instant death says: "If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness"
Not necessarily weapon. Small point.

I've checked out because both sides have been enunciated rather thoroughly and it is just a difference in opinion if a wound by Str 8 is the same as wounded by a weapon with Strength 8. You can stop now Ellios, we see your side of the argument and a significant amount of people do not agree. No amount of repetition (or inevitable insults of 'people who don't agree with me just can't read!') is going to change that.

Now if you still think this issue doesn't belong in an FAQ, well then I might call you crazy.

Col. Elios: You're argument is resting on two premises, as far as I can tell:
1) The ID rules refer to the weapon profile, which for the NS says S=x, and there is no other way to refer to a weapons strength.
2) The phrase Roll to wound as follows: the neural shredder has a Strength of 8 but, rather then using the targets' Toughness, their Leadership is used... The NS has the following profile..." means, and can only mean, that the NS has a S of 8 only during the wounding process.

If I'm incorrect in your premeses, please let me know.

The first premise is demonstratively incorrect. P 23 of the BGB says "Every weapon has it's own Strength value, given in the description of the weapon." Note that it says description, not simply profile. This is the rule that allows PotW, Tryanid weapons, and yes, even the NS to cause wounds. To catagorically point to the profile, which is itself only a subset of the weapons description, and claim that the NS lacks a defined S is a selective and incorrect reading of the RAW. You still have an argument that the weapon description does not have a general value for S, but to continually claim that the BGB looks to profile is a mistake.

2) The second premise is arguable. I think reasonable minds can difer on what that phrase means. Clearly, some people are conviced that it means the NS only has a S of 8 during the roll to wound. You seem to state that since the rules don't say it has S of 8 for purposes of ID, it's not legal to cause ID. The problem is, the rules don't state clearly "for the purposes of wounding, the NS has S of 8." What it says is ambigous, whcih I'm willing to grant, and I like you to do the same.

Moz wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:
Instant Death says: "When wounded by a weapon with strength double toughness..."

Just to pop in here, instant death says: "If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness"
Not necessarily weapon. Small point.

I've checked out because both sides have been enunciated rather thoroughly and it is just a difference in opinion if a wound by Str 8 is the same as wounded by a weapon with Strength 8.

That's actually only one of the issues, and it's the issue with which I agree with the good Colonel. I believe that the ID rules check to see the Strength of the "Something" that caused ID in a discrete step after the roll to wound. If the wound was caused by a "something" that only has a strength during the wounding process (for example, as merely a mechanism for causing a wound by bizarre cirucumstances) then by the time ID checks, the strength has disapated. I think it's possible that the NS simply uses a pretend strength and pretend toughness to determine if the model takes wounds. In that case, the "something" that caused a wound has no discernable strength. Keep in mind two key points: ID says "has" not "had", meaning it wants to know what Strength the thing has, and that ID is only checked after the model fails a save, meaning it's beyond the point where the wounding mechanic is involved.

The issue now is merely semantic, as I've noted in my previous post. I believe that the statement in the description of how to roll for wound "the NS has a strength of 8" defines the strength of the weapon, while others believe that the statement is conditioned by the phrase "roll to wound as follows:" to mean that the following verbiage only applies while rolling to wound. I think it is highly ambigious, and I'm of the mind that anybody that is deadly certain which way it reads is being a bit hasty in their judgement.

I play RAW whenever the RAW is pretty clear. In this case IMHO. It's clear enough. This isn't that ambiguous of a rule and in game terms certainly doesn't break the game. If you have ever used one extensively like I have in the past, you'll know what I mean. Assassins are expensive enough. Her having this ability isn't that big a deal.

Capt K

Green Blow Fly wrote:Captain K while RAW indeed seems to justify NS = ID but as far as playing within the SotR what you have said fails the litmus test.

- G

Polonius wrote:Col. Elios: You're argument is resting on two premises, as far as I can tell:
1) The ID rules refer to the weapon profile, which for the NS says S=x, and there is no other way to refer to a weapons strength.
2) The phrase Roll to wound as follows: the neural shredder has a Strength of 8 but, rather then using the targets' Toughness, their Leadership is used... The NS has the following profile..." means, and can only mean, that the NS has a S of 8 only during the wounding process.

If I'm incorrect in your premeses, please let me know.

The first premise is demonstratively incorrect. P 23 of the BGB says "Every weapon has it's own Strength value, given in the description of the weapon." Note that it says description, not simply profile. This is the rule that allows PotW, Tryanid weapons, and yes, even the NS to cause wounds. To catagorically point to the profile, which is itself only a subset of the weapons description, and claim that the NS lacks a defined S is a selective and incorrect reading of the RAW. You still have an argument that the weapon description does not have a general value for S, but to continually claim that the BGB looks to profile is a mistake.

You'd be correct, if that same page didn't go on to list weapons and their strengths by "strength" value (abbreviated by S in all weapon descriptions), as indicated by the word "Strength" at the top of the applicable column. Taking this as wrote, the NS's strength is "X." The page gives us no other criteria for determining weapon strength, other than that listed under "strength" of the weapon. "X" is not a strength value as required by I.D.. [EDIT: to clarify, the words you refer to "weapon description" are modified by the examples given, in which the weapon strength is that specifically identified by the "strength" line in the weapon description. Note that it doesn't say "weapon strength is determined by a weapon's special rules." The "weapon description" is defined by the table that follows, which clearly points out that weapons have a strength indicated by the "weapon description" which includes the listed "strength" value, a numerical value I might add, for each weapon.]

2) The second premise is arguable. I think reasonable minds can difer on what that phrase means. Clearly, some people are conviced that it means the NS only has a S of 8 during the roll to wound. You seem to state that since the rules don't say it has S of 8 for purposes of ID, it's not legal to cause ID. The problem is, the rules don't state clearly "for the purposes of wounding, the NS has S of 8." What it says is ambigous, whcih I'm willing to grant, and I like you to do the same.

Except that anyone who knows RAW policy knows that RAW only allows what it says. Period. The rule doesn't state "The NS is strength 8." and then continue to add rules. Rather, it specifies (to paraphrase) that it has S 8 when rolling against targets' Ld. That's the one, single, and only application of S8 in relation to the Neural Shredder allowed by the RAW. That's what RAW is. [exclusionary or permissive, make your pick, they both mean the same in this context)

The second point is really the strongest, as you say. But many other facts combined with RAW policy, as described by myself and others who agree that NS/=/I.D. extensively herein, point to that conclusion.

moz wrote:I've checked out because both sides have been enunciated rather thoroughly and it is just a difference in opinion if a wound by Str 8 is the same as wounded by a weapon with Strength 8. You can stop now Ellios, we see your side of the argument and a significant amount of people do not agree. No amount of repetition (or inevitable insults of 'people who don't agree with me just can't read!') is going to change that.

People in agreement about something doesn't make it right. As I've stated above, if my quotation of policy on RAW is correct, people who believe NS=ID fundamentally don't understand how to interpret the RAW.

Secondly, the model hasn't been "wounded" by S8. The model has been wounded by the weapon's special rules. The route taken to get there doesn't matter and certainly doesn't apply to the main rule set (including I.D.) because it's a specific rule found in a codex which specifically states it's only useful for wounding. As far as I.D. is concerned, the model in question was wounded by a weapon with S X. Prove me otherwise. One way or another, to arrive at Insaniak's and others' interpretation, you have to either invalidate the weapon description or the special rules, neither or which is allowed or "legal" by the RAW.

To put that last sentence another way, if you're to claim that the "S X" in the weapon description doesn't apply, you'd also have to prove that "AP 1, Assault 1, and 'Template'" are also excluded.

ColonelEllios wrote: The rule doesn't state "The NS is strength 8." and then continue to add rules. Rather, it specifies (to paraphrase) that it has S 8 when rolling against targets' Ld.

Your paraphrase again is twisted to assist your argument.
"Roll to wound as follows: the Neural Shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than rolling using the targets' Toughness values, their Leadership is used."

Moz you might as well stop. He isn't going to bend his argument and neither are the people who disagree with him. If he wants to hamstring his assassin further...let him...lol.

Capt K

ColonelEllios wrote: As I've stated above, if my quotation of policy on RAW is correct, people who believe NS=ID fundamentally don't understand how to interpret the RAW.

The argument from "Anybody who disagrees with me doesn't understand RAW" is pointless, Ellios. Give it up.

If you follow the rules of deductive logic--which are the same for everyone everywhere--then this is a sound argument:
P1 "The Neural Shredder has Strength 8"
P2: A model wounded by anything with a strength twice its toughness suffers Instant Death.
C: A model of t4 or less wounded by a neural shredder suffers instant death.

Any deductively sound argument that can be made is necessarily true within the rules. No deductively sound argument can be made that contradicts the argument above, so it is "true" as the strictest possible literal interpretation of the rules.

Your convoluted argument full of random premises, assumptions and non-sequitur conclusions is not even making a visible attempt to be logically sound. The only thing it demonstrates is that you don't understand the most basic rudiments of deductive logic. So it hardly supports your claims to be the ultimate arbiter of who is a good RAW reader and who isn't.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Moz you might as well stop. He isn't going to bend his argument and neither are the people who disagree with him. If he wants to hamstring his assassin further...let him...lol.

Capt K

Agreed that I am done with the debate until anything new happens. But tricky re-wording deserves a quick post.

There's been enough repetition to warrant locking this thread. Thank you all for not getting nasty about this.