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.

Okay so the Land Speeder Storm has the Cerberus Launcher, right? And this weapon is a large blast that has the blind special rule.

So if I target an enemy blob - say 10 Eldar Guardians - with it, and they are all densely packed, lets say I manage 7 hits.

Now because the Eldar Guardian has Initiative 5, he will most likely pass his blind test.

But does the squad of Eldar Guardians have to take 7 blind tests one after the other?

Go take a look at the Blind rules on BRB page 34. Blind affects the entire unit, you only take one initiative test.

I did.

It says: "Any unit hit by a model or weapon with this special rule must immediately take an Initiative test."

So if the unit gets hit 7 times by a weapon, that's 7 blind tests.

correct, 7 tests.

This is because it does not say "hit by 1 or more"

It just says hit.


Works the same way for gargoyle blinding attack.


Every hit causes a test.

welp, now I understand why Pask's Executioner Incandescent Blast is the new mutt's nuts.

Unless it gets FAQ'd, I guess we'll have to roll with it. Also I love my Storm that much more now

 Sir Arun wrote:
I did.

It says: "Any unit hit by a model or weapon with this special rule must immediately take an Initiative test."

So if the unit gets hit 7 times by a weapon, that's 7 blind tests.

It's one test, unlike the gargoyle blinging attack I do believe.

It's the model hitting you that determines the test, not the models hit.

So one Land Speeder Storm hitting with one blast = one test.

Multiple gargoyles hitting with multiple attacks = multiple tests.

I've always played it as one test, but I thought thye had to suffer an unsvaed wond before testing similar to pinning?

The pinning test rules are worded is a very similar way. I've never interpreted either as requiring a morale/initiative test for EACH wound/hit suffered - that seems like it would make them overly good. The OP's description of the cerebus launcher hitting 7 guardians and forcing 7 initiative tests seems wrong, because it makes it very unlikely that they would ever pass (Guardians are I5, so they SHOULD have a "good" chance of passing initiative test).

Short answer:
Game Workshop screwed it up, leading to 7 Tests!

Explained:
Blind is the Black Sheep of the Special Rule section, it rebels against the normal Formatting and this creates two very interesting problems:

The first is the absence of a 'One or More' clause found within other Rules which have the possibility of triggering multiple times in a single sequence. This Clause is pretty straight forward so it doesn't need very fine tooth combing to understand. After all, it is the absence of this Clause which created this thread for that simple reason of 'I have to be overlooking something' because it really does make Blind ten times more potent then any other Special Rule. However, from Rule as Written, the lack allows any Hit being resolved against the Unit to trigger the Special Rule so all Hits would trigger Tests.

The second is the absence of instructions telling us what happens if the Special Rule is found on the Model or the Weapon. Other rules which can be found on either a Model or Weapon contain different instructions on what to do if it is on a Shooting Weapon, or a Melee Weapon or the Model itself. This might not seem important, until one encounters a Melee-only Model using a Quad Cannon to transfer the Special Rule to a Shooting Attack. If this seems familiar, it is because entropic strike also fails to follow the 'Model or Weapon' Formatting and is more likely to be encountered causing these shenanigans....

Both problems would be easily fixed by writing Blind to follow the same Format used by others.

It's one test on the unit. Even those gargoyles who might hit 1000 times you would only test once since the attacking unit hits simultaneously.

Since one shot from a blinding gun can blind a whole unit not just the one guy hit. It's extremely powerful tool that literally makes a unit ineffective. Making a unit test as many times it's hit is just wish listing.

JinxDragon wrote:
However, from Rule as Written, the lack allows any Hit being resolved against the Unit to trigger the Special Rule so all Hits would trigger Tests.

Except it's not the hits themselves, or the number of hits, that triggers the test. The Blind test is triggered by the model with the rule. So even if a unit is hit once or 7 times, there is still only one model weapon with the Blind rule that triggers the test.

The second is the absence of instructions telling us what happens if the Special Rule is found on the Model or the Weapon.

The Blind rule says "any unit hit by a model or a weapon with this special rule...". How is that an absence of instructions?

gargoyles must suck to use then, as if they charge they'd have to roll every model seperately to ensure you only do a maximum of one blind test per model...

the wording seems quite clear. is the unit hit by the weapon? yes. it takes a blind test. if there were two weapons, and it was hit b both, it would take 2 blind tests.

No because they can only ever do one attack with the Blind special rule

Lungpickle,
Every attack might be 'simultaneous' but the resolution of Rules are always sequential. This is more true when it comes to Rules which use a cascading sequence, such as Shooting Attacks, or contain multiple parts that are resolved in different ways, such as most Shooting Attacks. If the logic was a Special Rule can only trigger once during a single 'simultaneous action,' we would end up with a great deal more broken situations....

So page and Paragraph supporting this concept, please?

D-Usa,
How to correctly explain this....

The Special Rule is present on all the attacks made by that Model/Weapon, it must be resolved on each attack. That is why the Clause of 'One or More' is very important, it's sole purpose was to create a Restriction designed to prevent sequential versions of the Special Rule from being resolved as part of that Shooting sequence. Given how common it is within so many other Rules, to the point it's absence from this one is an obvious oversight, it only stands to reason that this Clause has to have a purpose. If we are already to take the logic that a Special Rule can only trigger once per any 'simultaneous' event, then there is no purpose to this Clause at all because 'One or More' would already be covered.

As for the absence of instructions:
Read a few of the other Rules which can be found on either a Model or Weapon, they all contain instructions a lot more precise then 'Model or weapon with this special Rule does X.' These additional instruction create pseudo-Restrictions by informing us what to do if the Special Rule is found on a Melee Weapon, the Model or a Ranged Weapon by ensuring evoking the Rule for the 'wrong attack' does nothing. For example: one of these Rules found a Model would only modify Close Combat Attacks so evoking it on the Models Ranged Attacks does nothing.

Without such a Restriction we end up in the situation where a model with the Blind Special Rule can evoke said Rule on all Shooting Attacks, even those provided by a Gun Emplacement.

Personally:
I hold Blind up as evidence of why you stick to a unified Format when it comes to penning Rules, it is the Author's lack of such which is causing these problems.