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.

If the entity of a shooting attack is resolved against an unit as a whole; then please tell me how many wounds the unit has....

I do conclude that certain elements of a shooting attack are done at a unit level, for one you nominate which unit you are actually shooting at. However it is not the entirety of the shooting attack that addresses entire units, there are a lot of elements that can only ever be resolved against individual models. In fact, I would say once you reach a certain point in the sequence you have moved away from the 'unit level' as everything after that point is resolved against individual models. Wounds are allocated to the closest individual model, then saves are taken against that models characteristics. If the attack is successful, then individual models are wounded and removed as casualties.

It is pretty obvious we have a system which allows us to see which individual models are 'hit....'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallguynsc,

Treat it as any other weapon with a unique special rule, roll the To Hit separately and keep any wounds generated separate within the pool.

Dont' have my book nearby, but would Psykers be able to Look Out Sir the Perils result or do they not get to as there is not a To-Wound roll? (not quite sure if that's necessary to make a LoS).

Jinx - only hits are against the unit; wounds allocate to models, not hits.

Isn't wound allocation part of the shooting sequence?

Yes, however the shooting sequence differentiates between unit and model, consistently. Hits are units, wounds are models.

I've updated my iPad version 4 times now and it still says "a unit that...."

Maybe I need to uninstall and reinstall it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind. From the GW DE Facebook page:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Charles,
They haven't, the ibooks edition of Codex:Adepta Sororitas revived a formating update to bring it in line with the new Apple Mavericks operating system for apple computers, but the rules are unchanged.

The eBook edition does not automatically update, but the date of the last update is always displayed on the product page, and you can re-download an up-to-date copy at any time from the 'my downloads' section of your account.

- Eddie

The rule hasn't changed then.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Condemnors are guaranteed (pay 10pts and you have it every time) and only require a 3+ to hit. No roll to wound, no armor, no invuln, no lookout sir.

I disagree with guaranteed.

10pts to have a a single 50% chance to cause a wound against psyker special rule models within 24" isn't guaranteeing anything. Especially since it's so situational and against armies that don't use psykers is not simply less useful but rather completely useless. Spamming condemnors is going to cause a sisters' force that's already barely adequate against MEQ's in their shooting range to suffer a greater disadvantage, And even moreso against hordes where a single extra combi-flamer shot can make a potential difference between being charged and not charged.

Then I will need to review the To Hit section when I get home, it is a step that I have done so many times without referencing so I honestly do not know the exact wording within anymore.

I do have to ask something though:
What is the exact wording on the updated rule, if it even exists?

Normally special rules that change the standard order of events are very specifically written. They will use terminology like 'on a successful To Hit roll' to inform us at what point the rule is deviating away from the standard process. They are then followed with detailed instructions on what you do instead of the standard methods because without such details... well broken rules are broken. Therefore if this rule is talking about 'hitting psykers' to mean the To Hit roll, and not the wound allocation steps, it would need to have to use this exact term to inform us when the special rule takes affect and provide details on how the special rule is resolved because it is operating outside of the standard methods.

Does it contain this rule contain such terminology and instructions?

JinxDragon wrote:
Then I will need to review the To Hit section when I get home, it is a step that I have done so many times without referencing so I honestly do not know the exact wording within anymore.

I do have to ask something though:
What is the exact wording on the updated rule, if it even exists?

According to GW Digital Editions, no rules were updated. Frankly I'm willing to believe them since they're the ones who do the updates.

So we are trying to work out how a rule that doesn't exist functions based on a single poster who commented that it 'procs on hit'....

JinxDragon wrote:
So we are trying to work out how a rule that doesn't exist functions based on a single poster who commented that it 'procs on hit'....

Well the rule as it stands says it causes perils on a hit so it's not like the "new rule" really was making anything better.

Guess the only thing we can honestly say on the matter is this: Badly written rule is badly written.....

While I was more then willing to try and fit this triangle peg into the square hole of 'standard shooting rules,' just for some sort of resolution, it really isn't looking good thanks to the poor terminology chosen. The term 'on a hit' really is not very well defined, far from the usual 'on a successful To Hit roll' that I would normally expect from better written rules, but that isn't enough to state they are talking about something other then the To Hit roll because they very well could be talking about said roll. So I have to conclude that it is so poorly written that it is possible to simply call it broken and be done with it, because it clearly is....

 ClockworkZion wrote:

According to GW Digital Editions, no rules were updated. Frankly I'm willing to believe them since they're the ones who do the updates.

Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

I think Kyrinov was in the codex up until almost the end and got shifted to fluff when his mold wasn't renewed.

JinxDragon wrote:
So I have to conclude that it is so poorly written that it is possible to simply call it broken and be done with it, because it clearly is....

That's really... unhelpful...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

I think Kyrinov was in the codex up until almost the end and got shifted to fluff when his mold wasn't renewed.

Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as the Condemnor Boltgun goes, we've been playing it as such:

Target unit.
Roll to hit.
Did condemnor hit?
Yes.
Add 1 wound to the wound pool with no save allowed.
Shooter determines when wound is dealt in the order of wounds.

So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

JinxDragon wrote:
So we are trying to work out how a rule that doesn't exist functions based on a single poster who commented that it 'procs on hit'....

I don't appreciate the implication here. Maybe GW screwed up and different versions were updated differently but my digital codex on my ipad that I updated through ibooks today has changed the psi-shock rules to the stake crossbow verbage.

I also don't appreciate that you're trying to say that my word choice of proc would somehow suggest that what I say isn't trustworthy. Everyone here understands what the word proc means even if the terminology isn't native to 40k or wargaming.

Dadakkaest,
I did try and put it into context of a standard attack; but people complained that 'hits' are resolved at the unit level. While I am still not convinced that 'psykers hit' means the 'To Hit' roll, and not wound allocation, it doesn't matter. The interpretation of 'hit' could very well be derived from the To Hit roll, which can easily be argued is resolved against the targeted unit and not individual models. Helpful or not, this does mean the rule is broken because it is penned in such a way that it can never be applied as written....

Farrenj,
I do not mean to imply that you are being dishonest. There are possible reasons as to why you where able to access this information when others where unable to. It could very well be an error on Game Workshop's part, maybe they accidentally released the information ahead of scheduled and then withdrew it. Maybe they are still in the process of updating other sources, so only the type being used by you right now is accurate. Whatever the reasoning though, the update can not be independently verified from multiple sources at this exact moment so I simply can not trust the accuracy of the post until then.

However I do have to point this out: When discussing rules, particularly rules as written, the terminology used within those rules is very important.

 deviantduck wrote:
So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

And if it's the only wound in the pool and the Psyker is 5 models away?
You just arbitrarily kill something that isn't a Psyker?

Yeah, that's my least favorite house rule interpretation of the rule.

 deviantduck wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

I think Kyrinov was in the codex up until almost the end and got shifted to fluff when his mold wasn't renewed.

Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.

You have a basis for that? I ask because between our theories mine is looking a bit more likely since his relic is in C:AS and his model is OOP.

rigeld2 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

And if it's the only wound in the pool and the Psyker is 5 models away?
You just arbitrarily kill something that isn't a Psyker?

Correct. That is how we house rule it. It's similar to dealing 5 flamer wounds to guys out of the templates range because they're within the squads range. it only makes sense in the rules, not the fluff. I would love it to be hit a squad, kill its psyker, no questions asked, but it's tough to convince the owner of the psyker model, based on vaguely worded rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.
You have a basis for that? I ask because between our theories mine is looking a bit more likely since his relic is in C:AS and his model is OOP.

They wouldn't leave him out just because of lack of model, a model which has been around for decades and easy enough to obtain. Also, in one of the inquisition threads someone quoted from a GW email response he wasn't 'left out' of the AS codex. I could very happily be wrong, it just feels like they are moving him from AS to Inquisition.

 deviantduck wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

And if it's the only wound in the pool and the Psyker is 5 models away?
You just arbitrarily kill something that isn't a Psyker?

Correct. That is how we house rule it. It's similar to dealing 5 flamer wounds to guys out of the templates range because they're within the squads range. it only makes sense in the rules, not the fluff. I would love it to be hit a squad, kill its psyker, no questions asked, but it's tough to convince the owner of the psyker model, based on vaguely worded rules.

It'd be harder to convince me that you're causing a PotW wound on a non-psyker model... but have fun with that house rule.

We've played it such that you cause one peril on the closest psyker for each hit. That was our reading of intent - so no wiping out units, but no getting away from having to take the perils if the unit is hit.

Causing a perils on a non-psyker model seems a bit wierd to me.

It seems no less weird than a perils occuring on the opposite side of a unit which may or may-not be outside the condemnor's range.

We haven't run across it yet, but until it is FAQd, i'm not letting someone pop my psykers without pointing to the Psyker rule in the list of unit special rules.

It doesn't seem weird to me. You can fluff it out easy enough. An anti-psyker bolt gets too close to a psyker and their mixed energies cause a rift in the warp a mere few feet from the psyker and the warp eats the psyker's buddy, Carl the Boltgun guy.

I paid 10 pts to deal an unsavable wound. I'm happy.

Beside the causal effect of the psi shock, can someone point to where it states that it is a combi weapon? I see it listed in warhead, as a separate entry than combis. Just wondering if I missed something.

graeye wrote:
Beside the causal effect of the psi shock, can someone point to where it states that it is a combi weapon? I see it listed in warhead, as a separate entry than combis. Just wondering if I missed something.

Right above the statline in the Reliquary Ministorum:

A condemnor boltgun follows all the rules for combi-weapons. The primary weapon is a boltgun. The secondary weapon has the following profile

Until GW pulls their heads out of their rears, I will play it as follows:

Page 55 – Condemnor Boltgun, profile *.
Change to “* Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a
stake crossbow shot[…]”

from C: GK.

 Happyjew wrote:
Until GW pulls their heads out of their rears, I will play it as follows:

Page 55 – Condemnor Boltgun, profile *.
Change to “* Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a
stake crossbow shot[…]”

from C: GK.

Which makes it, unfortunately, completely useless.