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.

 pretre wrote:

 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.

It really doesn't - but I'd allow it to be "allocated a Wound" instead of suffering an unsaved wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 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.

It really doesn't - but I'd allow it to be "allocated a Wound" instead of suffering an unsaved wound.

See, that would make it useful.

'Unsaved Wound' makes it pretty yucky, since most psykers have at least 3+ save and the Condemnor doesn't take that away. Allocate is good since they would take a wound from the Perils right there.

Maybe that is why I never see GK players take them. I agree, though, if the wound is allocated to a psyker, it suffers Perils.

Clearly I am with the group that would like to house-rule this to read 'when a wound is allocated' because that is the only way I can see individuals model being 'hit' by a weapon.

 deviantduck wrote:

 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.

Actually post dealing with CHS, they would. No rules for things with no model is the policy now it seems.

Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Except models don't get hit. Units do. It doesn't fix anything. And not all editions were updated and the digital guys said they didn't change everything. So not quite done yet.

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

 pretre wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Except models don't get hit. Units do. It doesn't fix anything. And not all editions were updated and the digital guys said they didn't change everything. So not quite done yet.

And that's quite obviously the psi-shock rule wording for the 5th edition Witch Hunters book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

It's been updated.

teban wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

It's been updated.

That's pretty vague and unhelpful. I've tried updated 5 separate times and have the same rule in my codex as before. I was asking if someone who updated and sees this new rule can try updating again and seeing if it changes again. This is to test a theory that perhaps a bad update went out that was replaced with a different one later that changed the rule back.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

teban wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

It's been updated.

That's pretty vague and unhelpful. I've tried updated 5 separate times and have the same rule in my codex as before. I was asking if someone who updated and sees this new rule can try updating again and seeing if it changes again. This is to test a theory that perhaps a bad update went out that was replaced with a different one later that changed the rule back.

Sorry, it took a while to upload the image, but here it is



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Okay, but did you update again to see if it stays that way or not?

Christ is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Okay, but did you update again to see if it stays that way or not?

Christ is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?

I updated it yesterday, which had the other wording. Give me some minutes and i'll give you that answer

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Okay, but did you update again to see if it stays that way or not?

Christ is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?

It would appear not.

I would help but I do not possess funds to purchase either a viewer or the book.

I have downloaded the ibook version again. The wording remained the same as in the picture i uploaded 2 posts up.

In other words... this remained:



I don't understand why you're not getting the new version. I'm not very familiar with the iPad, however, you should try to reset your cache on your device.

Well to try and see if it was just a failed update on my end I just deleted my copy and am downloading a fresh copy. I'll post when it's downloaded and I can actually say what my new copy has.

Also, is your version the ebook or via ibooks? That might have something to do with it. They might be two different versions. I have the ibooks version and just updated it and it still reads the same.

 Happyjew wrote:
Maybe that is why I never see GK players take them. I agree, though, if the wound is allocated to a psyker, it suffers Perils.

well the rules state that any psyker hit by it suffers perils, OBS we dont really know who is hit till the wound is allocated, but then with things like LOsir to re allocate, even though the psyker was actually hit (wounding is after hits) gets bit complex,

so its a bit of a kerfuffle for sure with the wording on the rule. Id say the intent is that once the psyker is determined to be the model hit (ie is 1st in line to be allocated the wound, before LOSirs), then it suffers perils, even if it LOS's the wound away, as he has been hit before wounds are allocated. its very much ambiguous and poorly written.

to be honest, its a moot point, either way, the condemner is utterly worthless since its a one shot only thing, and its "intended" use would really only seem to work if you had a psyker first in line to take the hits

Regardless of how the ruling eventually goes, it will be pretty powerful against Daemon MCs, Tyranid MCs, and GK Vehicles/MCs. Any single-model unit that is a Psyker will take wounds--not too shabby.

Alright looks like the problem was a cache issue.



So to quote a movie here: "It just raises too many questions."

Yes, that wording is incredibly unhelpful, as units are hit not models. It also doesnt work, as it is a condemnor boltgun not a stake crossbow....

So they changed it to what is written in the GK codex (and was overridden by the FAQ)...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, that wording is incredibly unhelpful, as units are hit not models. It also doesnt work, as it is a condemnor boltgun not a stake crossbow....

condemner boltguns special shot is the stake crossbow,
its just a combi weapon with a one shot crossbow in the detailed desctiption in GK codex.

thats why I say its worthless, its one shot only, and very few models can take it.

even if RAW and RAI were just that you had to "hit" the psyker, and he cant re allocate hits as he can wounds, so no getting out of the perils with a LOS roll, its just ONE perils, and done,

very un usefull even if it works as intended, as without precision shots you wont hit the psyker, as you will with mindstrike missles, which have the same stupid "if hit then perils" wording,

I posted on GW: DE's Facebook page about the issues with "hits" and how it's supposed to work in regards to Psykers hidden in a squad. We'll see if they get back to us.

They should just make the damn thing a combi that fires a small blast template that only perils and doesn't do the str5 AP- hit and use the psi-shock missile FAQ from the GK codex and be done with it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, that wording is incredibly unhelpful, as units are hit not models. It also doesnt work, as it is a condemnor boltgun not a stake crossbow....

Yep. This "update" was pretty much worthless. If they were going to go through the effort of updating the wording, they could have at least gotten it close to usable.

So here's what I posted on FB yesterday (for context):

Games Workshop: Digital Editions, so I dig the update to the Sororitas codex but a couple of small things:
1. On the iPad version if you look at the "Act of Faith" rule for the Canoness under her listing in the Army List it brings up the "Armour of Faith" entry that belong to the Emperor's Champion.
2. For the Condemnor Boltgun, it says when a Psyker is "hit" they suffer a perils of the Warp, and that works for Psykers who aren't in units and units with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, but how do we determine if a Psyker in a unit of non-Psyker models is "hit"? The rules don't give us a way to allocated "hits" only "wounds".

And here's the reply:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions,
We're aware of both of those and an update is going through Apple now for Approval.
When you get the prompt to update, those changes will be in included.

So that should be updated in a few days.

At least we now know it is worthless to take. Unless your opponent is a muttonhead and puts his psyker out front or runs him solo your odds of this thing doing much are nil.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
At least we now know it is worthless to take. Unless your opponent is a muttonhead and puts his psyker out front or runs him solo your odds of this thing doing much are nil.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Regardless of how the ruling eventually goes, it will be pretty powerful against Daemon MCs, Tyranid MCs, GK Vehicles/MCs. Any single-model unit that is a Psyker will take wounds--not too shabby.

Also, any unit with BoS/P will take an usaveable wound. Kill the Justicar in a GK unit? That's pretty cool.