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 agree with jy2 and I think interpretation is fundamentally sound with good examples given in support such as the Impaler cannon, purgation squad and smart missiles. They can all wound without needing Los.

The problem with that is they all specifically say they ignore LOS rules.

 Red Corsair wrote:
jy2- That is a matter of view do to vague writing, and this is why we need to resort to RAW. I read the anywhere as a very nonspecific term ie they wanted players to be able to place the line at any spot on the battlefield not on a models base but within the obvious restrictions laid out by the shooting rules.
Here is a map marking the location of your final destination, take any route you chose.
-While being a citizen you have basic civil laws in place and obviously you are free to go anywhere in your car while obeying traffic law. Like not driving down one ways, or an the shoulder of the road. Your arguing that in the abcense of restating laws that govern you already that you can ignore them.

Anywhere =/= anywhere outside LoS.

I don't appreciate the giant red letters if you can tell. I heard your argument and it is wrong. The rules tell us it's wrong. Your interpretation is your skewed interpretation, not rule.

If you intepret "anywhere" as "anywhere within its LOS", then we'd just have to agree to disagree.

"Anywhere" is purposefully broad as it was meant to be. The only RAW restriction placed on it is "within the gun's range". If the description did not (and it does not) explicitly restrict it to be "within the gun's LOS" as well, then by RAW there is no restriction on the gun's LOS. Because if you can only fire it within the gun's arc of fire, then that isn't "anywhere" any more.

As for your example above, if you follow pure RAW, then yes, do as you like and drive anywhere. You may get pulled over and arrested but you are still following pure RAW. But all this really illustrates is that the real world operates much differently than the gaming world. Saying that the death ray can fire anywhere "within the gun's LOS" is making your own logical assumptions. That is not the pure RAW of the rule.

Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

Also in the absence of specificity we have to use the core rules set. The death ray doesn't address LoS, therefore we have no choice but to default to the book, this is a matter of games design and rule make up that you seem to be failing to grasp. You need permission to ignore LoS for wound allocation which you have failed to prove.

This forum runs on RAW, in this case it is pretty clear cut. If you want to house rule it where you play that is more then acceptable but for our purposes you are ignoring the facts and are making assumptions using poor examples that actually undermine your point on intentions anyway.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it they way you suggest.

You're making an unfounded assumption that Matt Ward knew when the GK book was being written what the final 6th edition rules were going to be.

It's a 5th edition book. Just like Codex: Necrons.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it they way you suggest.

You're making an unfounded assumption that Matt Ward knew when the GK book was being written what the final 6th edition rules were going to be.

It's a 5th edition book. Just like Codex: Necrons.

But that's also my point why RAI has no place here. I was showing that we can all make unfounded interpretations like jy2 has been.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It's a 5th edition book. Just like Codex: Necrons.

Alot of people would actually tend to disagree with that, considering the Necrons codex was made at the end of the final tweakings for 6th edition. If you haven't noticed yet they actually have less problems with the new rules than other codecies because alot of people (myself included) belive that the necrons codex wasa actually made for 6th which is why it was so strange to play with in 5th. necrons is the only thing that you can concivably say there was 6th RAI.

If Necrons was written for 6th they would not have needed to add the entire Invasion Beams section to the Nightscythe.

Or clear up sweep attacks and the CCB, or whip coils or the DR and snap shots and this mess here...... Codex SM seems to have less problems.

But my main point was to demonstrate how we all have different opinions on intent, which is why its left out on these forums. I should have been more clear but jy2 seems to be dwelling on the vague areas and intent to make his arguments.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
If Necrons was written for 6th they would not have needed to add the entire Invasion Beams section to the Nightscythe.

They needed to for 5th congruency. Look at the heavy vehicle type and how its changed IG but it was in ours.

Im not saying that our dex was perfect, god knows none of them are. But its not too hard to make a RAI interpretation for 6th crons. That being said I would not say that the doomscythe has a 360 firing radius. I'm thinking a 45-60.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

Things that state they can ignore LOS to "shoot" a target have a good argument to allocate wounds to said target. "Shooting" is steps 1-5 on pg 12. Note that included #5 Allocate wounds. So if something can shoot "regardless of LOS or not" then it can #5 Allocate Wounds (regardless of LOS or not).


Death Ray has no exception at all for LOS, and even though you can draw the line through units out of LOS, you cannot allocate wounds to them, much the same as you cannot allocate wounds to Blasts out of LOS.

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

Things that state they can ignore LOS to "shoot" a target have a good argument to allocate wounds to said target. "Shooting" is steps 1-5 on pg 12. Note that included #5 Allocate wounds. So if something can shoot "regardless of LOS or not" then it can #5 Allocate Wounds (regardless of LOS or not).


Death Ray has no exception at all for LOS, and even though you can draw the line through units out of LOS, you cannot allocate wounds to them, much the same as you cannot allocate wounds to Blasts out of LOS.

^QFT

Im not saying that our dex was perfect, god knows none of them are. But its not too hard to make a RAI interpretation for 6th crons. That being said I would not say that the doomscythe has a 360 firing radius. I'm thinking a 45-60.

So if it was written for sixth and they chose not to address LoS, I would claim it was intentional to default to the rulebook here.

Agreed. The only problem I have with defaulting is, what do we default to? It dosent tell us what kind of mount it is on. Again, looking at the weapon I would suggest a 45-60 firing ark. I would also say that it only applies to the initial location of the shot, not the line itself.

Wow, I cannot believe this is even an argument. Jy2 has the right of it. RAW, the Death Ray says to target a point anywhere. That's it, there is no further qualification required. Anywhere.

Anyone who is adding any sort of qualifier may as well add in more arbitrary qualifiers, such as "anywhere within LOS and not painted orange". There's no difference between the two.

Anywhere within its range means just that: anywhere within its range.



However, for those who are in love with the idea that the artistic design really matters:

The Death Ray is mounted on a ball joint, and in practice, if it were to swivel (as in, was not limited by being a plastic toy model) then it would point slightly downward to target points on the ground (as specified in the rules). Once the Death Ray is angled slightly downards, it can easily rotate freely without colliding with the Tesla Destructors.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from the top of the death ray, which is at the same height as the middle of the destructors barrel.

If you believe that the death ray can swivel past, explain that. You cannot, but try.

Point the Death Ray down 45 degrees and then rotate it. The cannon now rotates past the tesla destructors.

Your argument tha tthe cables would be "flexible" is irrelevant - they would have to STRETCH to twice their length simply to allow a 90 degree rotation..... which cannot happen because the tesla destructors are in the way

I assume you've measured the length of the cables and done the math required to back up this statement? If not please proceed to actually provide proof for your claim.

Which edition the codex was written for is a total straw man argument. Let's stick to the facts please. : )

azazel the cat wrote:Wow, I cannot believe this is even an argument. Jy2 has the right of it. RAW, the Death Ray says to target a point anywhere. That's it, there is no further qualification required. Anywhere.

Anyone who is adding any sort of qualifier may as well add in more arbitrary qualifiers, such as "anywhere within LOS and not painted orange". There's no difference between the two.

Anywhere within its range means just that: anywhere within its range.

Apparently you havent read the thread, as noone is arguing that point.,

What you aremissing is that 6th edition has an explicit requirement, on page 16, for models in the target unit to be within LOS before wounds can be allocated to them.

Does the death ray have any exception to that rule? No? Shock, then it isnt exempt. Same as people have been saying for 5 pages now

Canadian 5th wrote:
I assume you've measured the length of the cables and done the math required to back up this statement? If not please proceed to actually provide proof for your claim.

So, you are making an extraordinary claim (that a fixed cable can wrap entirely around despite being almost at full stretch) and are offering no proof to the contrary? You can see by looking how far the cables can shift before stretching tight. It is not 180 degrees in either direction. If you disagree, provbide any proof you can muster.

It is hull mounted, and nothing about the assembly alters that. Hull. Mounted.

So, you are making an extraordinary claim (that a fixed cable can wrap entirely around despite being almost at full stretch) and are offering no proof to the contrary? You can see by looking how far the cables can shift before stretching tight. It is not 180 degrees in either direction. If you disagree, provbide any proof you can muster.

It is hull mounted, and nothing about the assembly alters that. Hull. Mounted.

I'm not making the claim at all, you came out claiming that it can't turn and therefore must have access to the model to confirm this. I have said that I don't have the model in question at this time and am asking you to measure the cables so we can tell exactly how far to the left and right the Death Ray can turn. You also failed to address the fact that the death ray, by angling down, can turn pas the Tesla destructors. That was another key point to your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


So, you are making an extraordinary claim (that a fixed cable can wrap entirely around despite being almost at full stretch) and are offering no proof to the contrary? You can see by looking how far the cables can shift before stretching tight. It is not 180 degrees in either direction. If you disagree, provbide any proof you can muster.

Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

The cables are part of the Scythe. Necron Scythes are made of living metal. Therefore, the cables are made of living metal.

The cables are made of living metal. Living metal is a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair." Therefore, the cables are made of a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair."

It is entirely reasonable that cables made from a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair" can stretch around a ball joint.

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


So, you are making an extraordinary claim (that a fixed cable can wrap entirely around despite being almost at full stretch) and are offering no proof to the contrary? You can see by looking how far the cables can shift before stretching tight. It is not 180 degrees in either direction. If you disagree, provbide any proof you can muster.

Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

The cables are part of the Scythe. Necron Scythes are made of living metal. Therefore, the cables are made of living metal.

The cables are made of living metal. Living metal is a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair." Therefore, the cables are made of a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair."

It is entirely reasonable that cables made from a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair" can stretch around a ball joint.

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

This isn't what the book tells us to do though. You check the model to see the mounting. It is not a turret because of the arrangement of pipes. I do appreciate your imaginative description but that is not how it works. The models wasn't designed to move as a turret, there is only one way to model it in the instructions and that is fixed forward. It also wasn't designed to pivot laterally but the rules give it an auto 45 up and down anyway. So it has 45 left and right and 45 up and down for LoS for allocating wounds. It's that simple.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You also failed to address the fact that the death ray, by angling down, can turn pas the Tesla destructors. That was another key point to your argument.

Can it angle down that far? There is still a decent bit of gun that would have to rotate up and into the hill if it was going to.

Also, I don't see a hinge at the rotation point, just the swivel. Maybe I'm not seeing it.

Red Corsair wrote:

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So, you are making an extraordinary claim (that a fixed cable can wrap entirely around despite being almost at full stretch) and are offering no proof to the contrary? You can see by looking how far the cables can shift before stretching tight. It is not 180 degrees in either direction. If you disagree, provbide any proof you can muster.

Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

The cables are part of the Scythe. Necron Scythes are made of living metal. Therefore, the cables are made of living metal.

The cables are made of living metal. Living metal is a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair." Therefore, the cables are made of a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair."

It is entirely reasonable that cables made from a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair" can stretch around a ball joint.

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

This isn't what the book tells us to do though. You check the model to see the mounting. It is not a turret because of the arrangement of pipes. I do appreciate your imaginative description but that is not how it works. The models wasn't designed to move as a turret, there is only one way to model it in the instructions and that is fixed forward. It also wasn't designed to pivot laterally but the rules give it an auto 45 up and down anyway. So it has 45 left and right and 45 up and down for LoS for allocating wounds. It's that simple.

Ah, but the BRB specifically refutes your reasoning by explaining that some fixed weapons should be considered to be turret-mounted, even if the model itself does not allow for free movement; and we are to accept this only as a limitation of the molding process, and simply treat the fixed weapon as though it were turret-mounted.

Therefore, noting that the Death Ray is on a ball joint implies we are to treat it as though it has full rotational capabilities, and thus has 360-degree LOS. (however, the cables only have to allow for 180-degree rotation in each direction in order to achieve full 360-degree LOS)

And Nosferatu1001, I hate to admit this, but honestly I think the strongest evidence we have that the Death Ray is meant to have full 360-degree rotation is that you believe it does not. With the new Necron FAQ, isn't your record regarding the Necron codex something like zero-for-everything so far?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You also failed to address the fact that the death ray, by angling down, can turn pas the Tesla destructors. That was another key point to your argument.

Can it angle down that far? There is still a decent bit of gun that would have to rotate up and into the hill if it was going to.

Also, I don't see a hinge at the rotation point, just the swivel. Maybe I'm not seeing it.

It's a ball joint, like your shoulder. It doesn't need a hinge. That's how ball joints work.

azazel the cat
Wow, I cannot believe this is even an argument. Jy2 has the right of it. RAW, the Death Ray says to target a point anywhere. That's it, there is no further qualification required. Anywhere.

Anyone who is adding any sort of qualifier may as well add in more arbitrary qualifiers, such as "anywhere within LOS and not painted orange". There's no difference between the two.

Anywhere within its range means just that: anywhere within its range.

nosferatu1001
Apparently you havent read the thread, as no-one is arguing that point.(,)

What you are-missing is that 6th edition has an explicit requirement, on page 16, for models in the target unit to be within LOS before wounds can be allocated to them.

Does the death ray have any exception to that rule? No? Shock, then it isnt exempt. Same as people have been saying for 5 pages now.

Apparently you haven't followed the entire thread either as others including myself have said the same. jy2 has expounded on the subject citing other pertinent examples such as smart missiles, the Purgation squad's Astral Aim and Hive Guard impaler cannons... None of these require LoS either to target/wound enemy models.

Does the death ray have any exception to that rule? No? Shock, then it isnt exempt. Same as people have been saying for 5 pages now

Codex wouldnt trump?

 Lt.Soundwave wrote:

Does the death ray have any exception to that rule? No? Shock, then it isnt exempt. Same as people have been saying for 5 pages now

Codex wouldnt trump?

In order for the Codex to trump the rules given in it must go against the BRB rules, here they don't.

G. Whitenbeard wrote:
Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Good start to an argument....

G. Whitenbeard wrote:Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

****snip**** flawed reasoning that being capable of resilience and self repair allows it to stretch. Not only fluff based but actually ignores the fluff itself and makes soome other gak up

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

Sorry, "silly"? You do realise none of your fluff actually supports your contention? REsilience and self repair does not equal "can stretch", now does it? So not only have you managed a fluff based argument, against the tenets of this forum, but you even got that bit *wrong*

azazel the cat wrote:by explaining that some fixed weapons should be considered to be turret-mounted, even if the model itself does not allow for free movement; and we are to accept this only as a limitation of the molding process, and simply treat the fixed weapon as though it were turret-mounted.

Only if the model is assembled such that it cannot move. NOt where it is designed so it cannot move. This is not the former.

azazel the cat wrote:Therefore, noting that the Death Ray is on a ball joint implies we are to treat it as though it has full rotational capabilities, and thus has 360-degree LOS. (however, the cables only have to allow for 180-degree rotation in each direction in order to achieve full 360-degree LOS)

Which they do not. Meaning it is not an assembly issue, but a design issue. Which has been the topic of discussion for a couple pages now.

azazel the cat wrote:And Nosferatu1001, I hate to admit this, but honestly I think the strongest evidence we have that the Death Ray is meant to have full 360-degree rotation is that you believe it does not. With the new Necron FAQ, isn't your record regarding the Necron codex something like zero-for-everything so far?

Nope, so far only their change of rules for FW and MSS. And given their flip flopping on other similar rules who knows if that will stay

Dozer Blades wrote:
Apparently you haven't followed the entire thread either as others including myself have said the same. jy2 has expounded on the subject citing other pertinent examples such as smart missiles, the Purgation squad's Astral Aim and Hive Guard impaler cannons... None of these require LoS either to target/wound enemy models.

Try checking when people have posted. Youre wrong.

No, Azazel didnt make any reference to the new claim that the rules for the death ray somehow allow it to assign to model s out of LOS, despite the fact that LOS was never mentioned in the death ray rules. UNLIKE HG, SMS et al Death Rays never mention LOS at all, so no, they are NOT similar . JY2s argument is flawed as it is making a false comparison

The exception Death rays have is they can "target" an initial point on the board, rather than having to target a unit directly. That is it. Trying to parlay that into a blanket exception to ignore all LOS restrictions on wounding, an entirely separate process not even HINTED at in the Death Ray rules, is an incredibly flawed leap of logic which has zero rules support. It still has zero ruyles support
Sorry, but the HULL mounted death ray has to shoot within its 45 degree LOS if you wish it to actually wound anything.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You also failed to address the fact that the death ray, by angling down, can turn pas the Tesla destructors. That was another key point to your argument.

Can it angle down that far? There is still a decent bit of gun that would have to rotate up and into the hill if it was going to.

Also, I don't see a hinge at the rotation point, just the swivel. Maybe I'm not seeing it.

It's a ball joint, like your shoulder. It doesn't need a hinge. That's how ball joints work.

The pictures in this thread don't look like ball joints. They look like swivel points.
And you're misquoting page 72 - it says nothing about ignoring the design.
You're also ignoring the cables that are there.
You're also ignoring that the gun, if you drop the front enough to clear the Tesla, would hit the hull with the rear part of the gun.

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

Things that state they can ignore LOS to "shoot" a target have a good argument to allocate wounds to said target. "Shooting" is steps 1-5 on pg 12. Note that included #5 Allocate wounds. So if something can shoot "regardless of LOS or not" then it can #5 Allocate Wounds (regardless of LOS or not).


Death Ray has no exception at all for LOS, and even though you can draw the line through units out of LOS, you cannot allocate wounds to them, much the same as you cannot allocate wounds to Blasts out of LOS.

I don't disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I entirely agree with you. However, you are still making a logical assumption here because the BRB never explicitly tells you that you can allocate wounds to something that you don't have LOS to (p. 16 - as a matter of fact, p. 16 tells you that you cannot allocate Wounds to a model if you cannot see it). Here, we are equivocating not needing LOS to a target to being able to allocate wounds to it. It isn't purely RAW. It is a logical assumption we are inferring from the context of RAW. And that is exactly what I am doing with the death ray as well - making the same logical assumptions with regards to allocating wounds with it as I did with the Impaler Cannon, SMS and Astral Aim as well.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


So, you are making an extraordinary claim (that a fixed cable can wrap entirely around despite being almost at full stretch) and are offering no proof to the contrary? You can see by looking how far the cables can shift before stretching tight. It is not 180 degrees in either direction. If you disagree, provbide any proof you can muster.

Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

The cables are part of the Scythe. Necron Scythes are made of living metal. Therefore, the cables are made of living metal.

The cables are made of living metal. Living metal is a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair." Therefore, the cables are made of a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair."

It is entirely reasonable that cables made from a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair" can stretch around a ball joint.

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

HAHAHA To claim that the quoted text is silly and respond with this.... ahahahahahaha