Switch Theme:

Does Entropic Strike from scarabs carry over to gun emplacements?  [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
Dakka Veteran





I'm 99% positive this has been asked before but doing a search for "entropic strike" in the forum search of YMDC is only coming back with 1-2 posts that aren't really related to this. If you have a link to this (dead horse?), please let me know.


Having a discussion with another player about the idea of putting a scarab on a quad-gun. True LOS behind and Aegis arguments aside, the question we couldn't come to an agreement on is if Entropic Strike from the Scarabs would be triggered from hits/wounds generated from the Quad-Gun Gun Emplacement. Unlike rules like Fleshbane, Rending, and Shred which provide separate rulings/caveats for melee and shooting, the Entropic Strike rule the Necron codex just states "A weapon or model with this special rule...". It never says wounds/hits generated in close combat vs shooting - likewise there is only one shooting weapons in the codex with this special rule (all other instances are on melee wargear or native to the model profile).

So.... If I have the quad-gun as a gun emplacement with a necron scarab base, would the shots have Entropic Strike attached to them?




(again, if this has been asked and someone has the link, please let me know).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/09 20:55:56


 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




Yes


 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






No, gun emplacements are not models.

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, gun emplacements are not models.


KK, he is not asking if Entropic Strike can affect the Gun Emplacement, he is asking if the shots fired by a model with the ES special rule will benefit.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

The whole model/non-model debate has no point here:
The Gun Emplacement never fires itself, it requires a secondary model to be the 'firer.'

8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






 Happyjew wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, gun emplacements are not models.


KK, he is not asking if Entropic Strike can affect the Gun Emplacement, he is asking if the shots fired by a model with the ES special rule will benefit.


Rereading, I see what was being said; Yes the shots from the Scarabs(using the Quad gun) would benefit from their entropic strike.

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in ca
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar





Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

A valid question, but one that needs another question answered;

Gun Emplacements can be fired by a model in base contact with it *instead of* their own weapon. The scarab lacks a weapon to fire, so can it actually fire the emplacement (with no "instead of" available)?

HIWPI, I'd allow it if my opponent tried it, and yes entropic strike would carry over based on the wording of the rule.

RAW/RAI .. Not a clue.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Rorschach9 wrote:
A valid question, but one that needs another question answered;

Gun Emplacements can be fired by a model in base contact with it *instead of* their own weapon. The scarab lacks a weapon to fire, so can it actually fire the emplacement (with no "instead of" available)?

HIWPI, I'd allow it if my opponent tried it, and yes entropic strike would carry over based on the wording of the rule.

RAW/RAI .. Not a clue.


Running is done instead of firing a weapon. If a model has no weapons, can it run?

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 Happyjew wrote:
Rorschach9 wrote:
A valid question, but one that needs another question answered;

Gun Emplacements can be fired by a model in base contact with it *instead of* their own weapon. The scarab lacks a weapon to fire, so can it actually fire the emplacement (with no "instead of" available)?

HIWPI, I'd allow it if my opponent tried it, and yes entropic strike would carry over based on the wording of the rule.

RAW/RAI .. Not a clue.


Running is done instead of firing a weapon. If a model has no weapons, can it run?


And grots manning big guns for orks don't have weapons to shoot with, but no one questions if they can shoot the quad gun. they just question can they see anything useful.

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I'm a necron player and I wouldn't play it this way.

The entropic strike rule may be RAW to be played this way, but I doubt many people would appreciate the tactic.

I will try and argue against it anyway.

The entropic strike rule states "weapon or model". This implies that the wounds in question must come from a weapon that has entropic strike or a model as the rule itself has made this distinction.

Therefore I argue that rule in question does not transfer as it would not satisfy the rule's conditions on what can trigger it as it is an exclusive or.

It can be a weapon or a model that triggers the ability. It can not be one triggering the ability for another. In otherwords, the logic returns false when you transfer the ability from the model to the weapon. I'll use "xor" for clarity.

weapon xor model - where (entropic strike denotes TRUE else FALSE)

weapon(entropic strike) xor model = TRUE

weapon xor model(entropic strike) = TRUE

weapon(entropic strike transferred from model) xor model(entropic strike) = FALSE

If you ever got into a situation where you had a model with entropic strike using a weapon with entropic strike(which doesn't happen), you would simply use the "weapon or the model". You can not satisfy that statement, as far as I'm aware, with scarabs firing a quad gun and therefore you cannot trigger the ability without using the model or the weapon exclusively to trigger the ability.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 01:18:18


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Sonicaucie,
Your interpenetration has one large and noticeable flaw: All attacks will use a Weapon Profile at some point, it is a requirement as part of the sequence used to resolve these Attacks.

The 'model or weapon' terminology we encounter repetitively through the Special Rule section serves no purpose unless it was designed to specifically give permission for a Model to do something we normally encounter on a Weapon. Should the concept of 'Special Rules do not transfer from Model to Weapon' be correct then there is zero reason for them to ever be stated on the Model in the first place, they would simply have left it as 'weapons.' As the Authors have used this terminology repetitively on Special Rules we can conclude that they intended for this terminology to have some sort of purpose. This is further compounded by the fact we encounter these Special Rules on the Models which can only be done if the Authors go out of their way to add them to the Model profile, something your interpretation makes a complete waste of time.

It is far more likely that the Authors intended for the rule to be evoked if the Model or the Weapon has access to it. This is particularly more telling if you look at units which have access to a Special Rule but happen to be armed with 'default infantry weapons' for their side. It is far easier writing a Rule so it can be applied to either a Model or Weapon when the alternative is writing out each and every possible Weapon/Model combination to give all Models their own Unique Weapon profiles. The fact we have terminology that makes the Rule stand out as something that can be found on Models or Weapons, that the Rules in question are found outright on Models, that the whole process which makes it easier to write further Rule interactions between Models/Weapons and that certain units are designed for them to function as interchangeable...

Which is more likely:
The terminology exists to inform us that either a Weapon with this Special Rule, or a Model with this Special Rule, can evoke said Special Rule
or
The terminology exists to just confuse us, as Shooting/Close Combat related Special Rules can only trigger if they are on the Weapon Profile

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 01:54:24


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




JinxDragon wrote:
Sonicaucie,
Your interpenetration has one large and noticeable flaw:
All attacks will use a Weapon Profile at some point.

Should the concept of 'Special Rules do not transfer from Model to Weapon' be correct then there is zero reason for them to ever be stated on the Model in the first place. The 'model or weapon' terminology we encounter repetitively through the Rules would all state nothing more then 'Weapon' as there is no point to the rest of the sentence. The fact it does not state 'weapon' lends credence to the concept that the Special Rule is designed to trigger if either the Weapon or the Model has the Rule. This is further supported by certain Unit's, or even Unit Types, gaining access to these Special Rules only because they are written into the Model's profile before we even find out what Weapons they may or may not have.

For example:
A Beast Model might not even have a Melee Weapon listed but would still have Rendering, with the intention that it applies to the Close Combat Weapon profile granted by the 'no dedicated Melee Weapon' rule.


I'll concede the point if you can present me a special rule on a model that transfers to the weapon with the "model or weapon" portion in its rule without an extension granting it permission to do so.

I believe because of the conditions at the start of the rule of entropic strike stating "weapon or model" that even if I had warriors with entropic strike firing gauss flayers; they would not gain the special rule when shooting or using a weapon's profile.

My stance is that it must be triggered by the weapon or the model and can not be triggered if you are using both unless they both have entropic strike as vanilla.

I'd also like to point out that a lot of the special rules seem to be written to account for the distinction I outlined.

Shred for example; does not transfer its rule to the weapon. It is something given to the model or a weapon and it states flat out that it does not transfer to a shooting attack. Rending makes the same distinction.

I believe that entropic strike was worded with the same intention behinds its rules, but the BRB special rules are worded more verbosely for clarity.

Note: I was just playing devil's advocate to argue against this point, but I've successfully convinced myself that this is the case.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 01:59:38


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

The issue I have with your interpretation is the fact it can not be Universally Applied.

While it might fix something that may or may not be intended, the Necron Codex is 5th edition after all and that has caused problems with 6th edition rules in and of itself, it causes problems for other 'Weapon or Model' Special Rules as they would have to be held to the same concept. Any Special Rule with this terminology would have to be found on the Weapon of the model, as there is always a Weapon Profile being used within the Shooting/ Close Combat Sequence, or else it would simply cease to function. Given that there are many examples out there where these 'Weapon Related' Special Rules are found directly on the Models themselves, it creates problems for the interpretation you are putting forth.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 02:04:41


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




JinxDragon wrote:
Sonicaucie,
Your interpenetration has one large and noticeable flaw: All attacks will use a Weapon Profile at some point, it is a requirement as part of the sequence used to resolve these Attacks.

The 'model or weapon' terminology we encounter repetitively through the Special Rule section serves no purpose unless it was designed to specifically give permission for a Model to do something we normally encounter on a Weapon. Should the concept of 'Special Rules do not transfer from Model to Weapon' be correct then there is zero reason for them to ever be stated on the Model in the first place, they would simply have left it as 'weapons.' As the Authors have used this terminology repetitively on Special Rules we can conclude that they intended for this terminology to have some sort of purpose. This is further compounded by the fact we encounter these Special Rules on the Models which can only be done if the Authors go out of their way to add them to the Model profile, something your interpretation makes a complete waste of time.

It is far more likely that the Authors intended for the rule to be evoked if the Model or the Weapon has access to it. This is particularly more telling if you look at units which have access to a Special Rule but happen to be armed with 'default infantry weapons' for their side. It is far easier writing a Rule so it can be applied to either a Model or Weapon when the alternative is writing out each and every possible Weapon/Model combination to give all Models their own Unique Weapon profiles. The fact we have terminology that makes the Rule stand out as something that can be found on Models or Weapons, that the Rules in question are found outright on Models, that the whole process which makes it easier to write further Rule interactions between Models/Weapons and that certain units are designed for them to function as interchangeable...

Which is more likely:
The terminology exists to inform us that either a Weapon with this Special Rule, or a Model with this Special Rule, can evoke said Special Rule
or
The terminology exists to just confuse us, as Shooting/Close Combat related Special Rules can only trigger if they are on the Weapon Profile


They perhaps wrote it this way as it creates significant more permutations in how a unit can operate depending on where the rules are placed.

If shred were to tranfer to weapons then giving the model shred would make any weapon it uses also have shred; this is not the case though.

The rules state most if not all possible situations where the special rule would be invoked;

In close combat:

model has it? reroll failed wounds

weapon has it? reroll failed wounds

Shooting:

Model has it? don't reroll failed wounds

Weapon has it? reroll failed wounds

Rending also states the same conditions. Entropic strike was written before this edition of the rules and I haven't read the previous edition so I have no idea if they were similar. The Necron codex is a 5th edition codex, but it could be that the special rules were rewritten specifically to clear up this subject.

Necron(entropic strike) + weapon + close combat = lose armor

Necron + weapon(entropic strike) + close combat = lose armor

Necron(entropic strike) + weapon(entropic strike) + close combat = lose armor

Necron(entropic strike) + weapon(entropic strike) + shooting attack = lose armor

Necron + weapon(entropic strike) + shooting attack = lose armor

Necron(entropic strike) + weapon + shooting attack = don't lose armor


Why does it work in close combat and not in shooting? Because the assault rules state that models fight; whereas in the shooting sequence you're firing a weapon. There is a distinction and this is what the special rules that I'm looking through presently obey.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 02:39:56


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

JinxDragon wrote:
While it might fix something that may or may not be intended, the Necron Codex is 5th edition after all and that has caused problems with 6th edition rules in and of itself...

There is ample evidence to prove that while Codex Necrons was released in 5th edition, it was written to be 'forward compatible' with 6th edition.

'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 gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Given that I started this debate off as a devil's advocate and now believe the interpretation / conclusion I've reached, I'll say in simple terms what I have interpreted the rules to be used as:

- The Assault Sequence states that close combat attacks take place between models

- The shooting sequence uses weapons to wound models

- Special rules outline when they take effect in respect to weapons and models.

- Entropic Strike, I believe, is sufficiently written, to come under the same restrictions as some special rules such as shred and rend.

Because it is either a weapon or a model that is causing the wounds and the entropic strike rule is exclusive in that it must be a weapon or model with the special rule that causes the wound for it to take effect; you cannot benefit from entropic strike unless the shooting weapon has the entropic strike rule just as a weapon would need rending (regardless of whether the firing model has that special rule).

Therefore you cannot transfer entropic strike to a quad gun. It only triggers in close combat or when the shooting weapon has the rule. Consider this; if you used charnel scarabs instead of canoptek scarabs for a quad gun; the quad gun would gain shred and rend if it wan't written explicitly to exclude this behaviour in the game.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 04:29:26


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

I think we might have a communication issue that might have to be addressed first.
What do you mean by the word 'transfer' in your statements?

When I saw the word transfer I was not picturing the Special Rule being added to the Weapon's Profile through some strange osmosis. What I was picturing was the Special Rule would be 'added,' a terminology that does not do what is occurring justice, to the very attack/scenario itself. The physical location of the Rule remains unchanged, however the Rule is 'in effect' and the instructions must be obeyed because it has been triggered. This is because I hold to the fundamental concept that the only requirement for a Special Rule to be evoked is if the conditions within the Special Rule have been met and no other restrictions are in play. It is also very important, maybe more so in the situation of 'Model or Weapon,' as the Authors have created limitations that make it so these Rules can only be evoked in the 'right' scenarios.

As you have brought Shred up to illustrate your point, allow me to use it to better explain mine:
Shred contains two sets of instructions, one for Close Combat and one for Shooting Attacks
The Close Combat section contains instructions informing us if the Model or Melee Weapon makes an attack it can do X
The Shooting section informs us that only Weapons with the Shred Special Rule can do X, it makes no mention of a Model triggering the Rule
As Shred lacks permission for a Model with this rule to do X during Shooting, it can not evoke the Rule during Shooting

Entropic Strike simply informs us when a model wounded by a model with this special rule, do X, so it can evoke whenever those conditions are met.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A question:
What page informs us that a Weapon must be selected as part of the Close Combat Sequence?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 04:06:34


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




JinxDragon wrote:
I think we might have a communication issue that might have to be addressed first.
What do you mean by the word 'transfer' in your statements?

When I saw the word transfer I was not picturing the Special Rule being added to the Weapon's Profile through some strange osmosis. What I was picturing was the Special Rule would be 'added,' a terminology that does not do what is occurring justice, to the very attack/scenario itself. The physical location of the Rule remains unchanged, however the Rule is 'in effect' and the instructions must be obeyed because it has been triggered. This is because I hold to the fundamental concept that the only requirement for a Special Rule to be evoked is if the conditions within the Special Rule have been met and no other restrictions are in play. It is also very important, maybe more so in the situation of 'Model or Weapon,' as the Authors have created limitations that make it so these Rules can only be evoked in the 'right' scenarios.

As you have brought Shred up to illustrate your point, allow me to use it to better explain mine:
Shred contains two sets of instructions, one for Close Combat and one for Shooting Attacks
The Close Combat section contains instructions informing us if the Model or Melee Weapon makes an attack it can do X
The Shooting section informs us that only Weapons with the Shred Special Rule can do X, it makes no mention of a Model triggering the Rule
As Shred lacks permission for a Model with this rule to do X during Shooting, it can not evoke the Rule during Shooting

A question I am pondering, as I can easily put Entropic Strike under the heading of '5th edition oversight,' is the Blind Special Rule:
Blind has the same problem, it's conditions are equally undefined but it is a 6th edition Rule, so any Frequently Asked Question that might bring more insight to this matter?


Perhaps transfer was poor word choice on my part. I'm basically saying when a special rule on the model affects the way weapons / attacks work.

My point revolves around the notion that the shooting sequence fires a weapon from a model but the assault sequence has models directly engage in combat with each other. This is reflected in the rule as the assault sequence specifies models while the to-wound sequence of the shooting sequence uses weapons.

In close combat, you may choose what weapons you wield, but you are not "firing" / "swinging" them when you roll to hit. Your model is engaged directly in combat with another model with his melee weapons changing the characteristics of his stats and abilities.

When shooting, your model is not engaged directly in combat, he is choosing a weapon to fire using his BS but the weapon is what's "attacking" the target not the model.

In otherwords, a bolter is always a bolter. If the rules for rend and shred were written like entropic strike, it wouldn't matter if a model has shred, rend, entropic strike and blind. The bolter doesn't suddenly become super charged because a guy with a lot of abilities picked it up.

I believe this is why entropic strike was written the way it was and why the special rules were written the way they were. The designers probably wanted to have the freedom to give a unit something like entropic strike to make it good in combat but then also give it a very nice shooting weapon without that ability. With the special rules working the way I interpreted, this is possible.

But if special rules like entropic strike were always active when shooting or in close combat, then they'd have to design around it and possibly forgo giving the unit entropic strike or the weapon entirely.

So, in my opinion; shred, rend and rules like them are probably more verbose in their effects to eliminate confusion on how they work but, effectively, I think they trigger / behave just like entropic strike does which is that it's exclusive to the weapon or the model. Blind was probably not expanded because of its scarcity on models.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/04/10 04:39:36


 
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof on a Scooter





I think the bigger question would be: can beasts man weapon emplacements? They cannot hold objectives, why would they be able to use guns?
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Swcorwyn,
They have a Ballistic Score and access to a ranged weapon....

8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof on a Scooter





JinxDragon wrote:
Swcorwyn,
They have a Ballistic Score and access to a ranged weapon....


Ballistic score yes, ranged weapon is what?
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Sonicaucie,
I find your interpenetration quite interesting but I do think it has some problems, the largest being the fundamental concept of when a Special Rule has 'permission' to trigger. For your interpretation to function there has to be a restriction that would prevent a Special Rule from being able to Trigger even when it's internal conditions are met. The care taken in other Rules to prevent this situation from occurring, ensuring the condition for Shooting Attacks can only be met by the Special Rule on a Weapon, would prevent the situation you are describing by making it impossible for the Special Rule to Trigger in the first place. However, I doubt we are going to come to agreement over when Special Rules have permission to Trigger, let alone at 3 am in the morning.

I simply will state that, without a specific quotable Restriction, I do not see anything preventing Entropic Strike from being able to trigger on both Shooting and Close Combat attacks, thanks to the lack of care taken when making the conditions as simple as 'did this model wound another?'

Swcorwyn,
The Gun Emplacement Rules themselves.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 06:17:23


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




JinxDragon wrote:
Sonicaucie,
I find your interpenetration quite interesting but I do think it has some problems, the largest being the fundamental concept of when a Special Rule has 'permission' to trigger. For your interpretation to function there has to be a restriction that would prevent a Special Rule from being able to Trigger even when it's internal conditions are met. The care taken in other Rules to prevent this situation from occurring, ensuring the condition for Shooting Attacks can only be met by the Special Rule on a Weapon, would prevent the situation you are describing by making it impossible for the Special Rule to Trigger in the first place. However, I doubt we are going to come to agreement over when Special Rules have permission to Trigger, let alone at 3 am in the morning.

I simply will state that, without a specific quotable Restriction, I do not see anything preventing Entropic Strike from being able to trigger on both Shooting and Close Combat attacks, thanks to the lack of care taken when making the conditions as simple as 'did this model wound another?'

Swcorwyn,
The Gun Emplacement Rules themselves.


While you may argue a lack of restrictions on the rule itself is flawed, I would argue in return that you were never granted permission to use the rule in the first place as your wound came from the weapon during the shooting attack and not the model.

It is only blind and entropic strike that have these properties as far as I can see; there might be another rule but I'm not going to look for it as it's un-necessary.

The thing is, this interpretation doesn't change anything as far as the game is played normally. It is only when it encounters the condition "model or weapon" like entropic strike and blind that it encounter this issue. And that's lead me to believe that this interpretation may be correct as it does make sense from a gameplay and narrative point of view.

If I gave a model the special rule "blind", I would imagine that it would have a narrative reason for it like the model fights with pocket sand. I wouldn't imagine him then being able to use the same trick with a quad gun or bolter and I don't imagine the designers did either. Entropic strike is defined as "Necron technology can break down even the hardest of armor" and thus a scarab shooting an imperial quad gun doesn't make sense at all unless you believe that they're incredibly talented at targeting weak spots in armor, yet are BS2 and will struggle to hit the target more than once.
   
Made in za
Fixture of Dakka




Temple Prime

sonicaucie wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Sonicaucie,
I find your interpenetration quite interesting but I do think it has some problems, the largest being the fundamental concept of when a Special Rule has 'permission' to trigger. For your interpretation to function there has to be a restriction that would prevent a Special Rule from being able to Trigger even when it's internal conditions are met. The care taken in other Rules to prevent this situation from occurring, ensuring the condition for Shooting Attacks can only be met by the Special Rule on a Weapon, would prevent the situation you are describing by making it impossible for the Special Rule to Trigger in the first place. However, I doubt we are going to come to agreement over when Special Rules have permission to Trigger, let alone at 3 am in the morning.

I simply will state that, without a specific quotable Restriction, I do not see anything preventing Entropic Strike from being able to trigger on both Shooting and Close Combat attacks, thanks to the lack of care taken when making the conditions as simple as 'did this model wound another?'

Swcorwyn,
The Gun Emplacement Rules themselves.


While you may argue a lack of restrictions on the rule itself is flawed, I would argue in return that you were never granted permission to use the rule in the first place as your wound came from the weapon during the shooting attack and not the model.

It is only blind and entropic strike that have these properties as far as I can see; there might be another rule but I'm not going to look for it as it's un-necessary.

The thing is, this interpretation doesn't change anything as far as the game is played normally. It is only when it encounters the condition "model or weapon" like entropic strike and blind that it encounter this issue. And that's lead me to believe that this interpretation may be correct as it does make sense from a gameplay and narrative point of view.

If I gave a model the special rule "blind", I would imagine that it would have a narrative reason for it like the model fights with pocket sand. I wouldn't imagine him then being able to use the same trick with a quad gun or bolter and I don't imagine the designers did either. Entropic strike is defined as "Necron technology can break down even the hardest of armor" and thus a scarab shooting an imperial quad gun doesn't make sense at all unless you believe that they're incredibly talented at targeting weak spots in armor, yet are BS2 and will struggle to hit the target more than once.

Trying to take the gameplay mechanics and mesh them into a cohesive narrative is a swift path to madness as you start wondering where the shots from the other part of a twinlinked weapon go when you get a hit on the first try, why Assault Cannons have rend but vulcan megabolters don't, why a wraithknight can get a cover save by sticking it's toe in a swamp, why Eldrad shows up with a different set of psyker powers every time he appears, or how one in six grots survive a deathstrike nuke.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 09:09:30


 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.



 
   
Made in ca
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar





Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

 Happyjew wrote:
Rorschach9 wrote:
A valid question, but one that needs another question answered;

Gun Emplacements can be fired by a model in base contact with it *instead of* their own weapon. The scarab lacks a weapon to fire, so can it actually fire the emplacement (with no "instead of" available)?

HIWPI, I'd allow it if my opponent tried it, and yes entropic strike would carry over based on the wording of the rule.

RAW/RAI .. Not a clue.


Running is done instead of firing a weapon. If a model has no weapons, can it run?


There is, however, a distinct difference. In the shooting phase "a unit may choose to run instead of firing." as opposed to "may fire a gun emplacement instead of their own weapon". Running in the shooting phase does not have the stipulation of firing (instead of) their own weapon, just instead of firing (which of course can a choice if the unit/model does not have a ranged weapon, even though they don't have the option to shoot) whereas "instead of firing their own weapon" requires a ranged weapon.

So yes, if a model has no weapons it can run because there is no stipulation that it is running instead of firing its own weapon (just instead of firing. can it fire a weapon? if it has a BS, yes. Not having a weapon of its own to fire is irrelevant).
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Sonicaucie,
Had we limited the discussion to the prospect of this being an 'Editorial Oversight' I would have no problem, I too firmly believe it was not the Authors intention to allow these Special Rules to trigger for shooting attacks. That it is only two Rules that even cause this problem to start with, an old 5th edition Rule and a 6th edition Rule that creates a great deal of additional problems thanks to the change in formatting, lends support to the idea that this an unintended result. It is completely rational to put forth an argument that the Rule should never have been printed without following the same format as other Rules of it's type.

Problem is, that same "Formatting Evidence" strengthens the opposite conclusion just as easily:
The care taken to ensure the other Rules can only trigger in certain situations was done deliberately, no one can deny that the Authors had to go out of their way to provide two set's of instructions when one would of sufficed. These Instructions then provide conditions that allow the Rule to trigger in three different ways; on a Melee Weapon, on a Shooting Weapon and from the Model itself. One set of instructions informs us if the Rule Triggers from Melee or from the Model then it does X, which requires Close Combat Attacks. The other set of instructions informs us if the Rule Triggers from a Shooting Weapon then it does Y, which can only involve Shooting Attacks.

Why go to all that work if there was already a Global Restriction in place preventing the Model bound Rule from triggering during a Shooting Attack in the first place?

There is an additional follow up question before I decide if I will bother putting forth a 'why it can not be Universally Applied' argument:
Do you honestly believe a Special Rule on a Model can not be 'triggered' during Shooting Attacks even if the situation meets the conditions within the Rule itself?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 20:07:51


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Wraith






I'm just enjoying the thought of doing this to make your opponent poop themselves as their vendettas and storm ravens become Av8.

lol

Edit: For Devil's Advocate, I have a beatstick Chapter Master on Quad Gun. I have no guns. I shoot the quad gun first turn, intercept, and then shoot off the Orbital Bombardment. May I then no longer fire the quadgun because I have no ranged weapons (or do grenades nullify this )

I have a psyker with no ranged weapons but a ranged psychic power... may I fire the quad gun?

I have never seen anyone stop anything that has a BS value from firing a quad gun. A Space Wolf Lone Wolf may be in terminator armor and melee weapons and that would disqualify him from quadgunning, but if he had a storm bolter or was in PA he could then quadgun? Seems silly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 20:18:56


Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




JinxDragon wrote:
Sonicaucie,
Do you honestly believe a Special Rule on a Model can not be 'triggered' during Shooting Attacks even if the situation meets the conditions within the Rule itself?


If it meets the conditions yes.

Preferred enemy specifies that it works in shooting and close combat. Rend, shred, ect all specify when they take place. So there's not much conflict in those rules.

When the rule specifies or is written clearly enough that the special rule is "triggered" during a shooting attack or that it affects the weapons of the model then you may use those special rules during a shooting attack.

My stance is contingent on the idea that the shooting sequence involves firing weapons from models and the assault sequence involves combat between models.

Models are not hitting or wounding models in the shooting sequence, weapons are. And therefore because, for the reasons I outlined above, the rules are exclusive to the weapon or the model and do not "transfer" to the weapon.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Okay, so you believe that the Rule can only Trigger during an Attack if it has specific instructions informing us how to proceed for that type of Attack?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 22:47:42


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




JinxDragon wrote:
Okay, so you believe that the Rule can only Trigger during an Attack if it has specific instructions informing us how to proceed for that type of Attack?


Yes and in the case of entropic strike it is specified that a model or the weapon has the special rule which are defined in how they interact with the game world in the shooting and assault sequence

Models and melee weapons are used in close combat.

Ranged weapons are used by models when shooting. The weapon is what's hitting and wounding the enemy model. Not the model.

Therefore, a model's special rules that do not specify that they affect the weapon, their shooting attacks, or such... will not affect their ranged weapons.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: