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.

And about damn time too

I can see myself running one of these Formations alongside my usual twin flyer drop units & a God Shackled CotBO

Isn't the God Shackle from the that Baal campaign book?

its in the latest WD as well I believe, but even so, it is merely a relic, the only stipulation is I have to use the WD Warlord table, which doesn't concern me as it is pretty good

White Dwarf only has that simple Monolith-Formation, the Relics and Traits are from Exterminatus.

I stand corrected.

Looks like the exterminates book is a necessity after all

Only if you really want to use those formations and items. Which are pretty cool, but I'd wait til the 7th ed Necron codex is out.

Edge of Eternity has Precision Strike 2+. What does that mean? If I read it correctly, it doesn't make you hit on a 2+, but it changes any and all hits to Precision Strikes since the Precision Strike rule modifies hits.

col_impact wrote:
Edge of Eternity has Precision Strike 2+. What does that mean? If I read it correctly, it doesn't make you hit on a 2+, but it changes any and all hits to Precision Strikes since the Precision Strike rule modifies hits.

If I understand correctly, it could mean that any to hit roll on a 2+ is a precision strike.
So basically

"hey, nice sergent"
*rolls a 3 to hit*
"Aaand he's gone."

However, there is no 2+ to hit in CC, so...idk.

No, it means you can choose who you hit on a 2+ to hit

so it overrules your gakky WS, and then you get to choose who gets whacked for your trouble

I think it means that all To Hits of a 2+ are Precision Strikes.
I'm not sure whether that ignores the normal To Hit-requirement or even the To Wound rolls.

Hitting on a 2+ (with 7 attacks) seems a bit overpowered.

 IHateNids wrote:
No, it means you can choose who you hit on a 2+ to hit

so it overrules your gakky WS, and then you get to choose who gets whacked for your trouble

That can't be right. That's just OP.
I mean, at S7 AP2 you pretty much murder any infantry character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
I think it means that all To Hits of a 2+ are Precision Strikes.
I'm not sure whether that ignores the normal To Hit-requirement or even the To Wound rolls.

Hitting on a 2+ (with 7 attacks) seems a bit overpowered.

How are you getting 7 attacks? The Edge doesn't increase attacks, does it?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That can't be right. That's just OP.
I mean, at S7 AP2 you pretty much murder any infantry character.

Since you take the other Relic too, it will be S8 and you ID anything with T4 (quite a lot)

How are you getting 7 attacks? The Edge doesn't increase attacks, does it?

Because I am putting it in a CCB, so we can count the Sweep Attacks

Kangodo wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That can't be right. That's just OP.
I mean, at S7 AP2 you pretty much murder any infantry character.

Since you take the other Relic too, it will be S8 and you ID anything with T4 (quite a lot)

How are you getting 7 attacks? The Edge doesn't increase attacks, does it?

Because I am putting it in a CCB, so we can count the Sweep Attacks

Oh my, I hadn't even considered the barge. That's just insanity.
You know what's even funnier? There's a warlord trait that gives his melee attacks haywire.
So basically, you could have a S8 AP2 overlord with 2+ to hit attacks, armorbane and haywire. Because feth yo' armor. I shall dub this configuration the Rick James.

I think you guys are misreading the rules involved.



The rule modifies hits that would have to be passed to it from a successful To Hit. It doesn't make hits on its own.

Well, let's put the 2 in there!
If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or higher To Hit with a Melee weapon. that hit is a 'Precision Strike'.

That sounds weird and doesn't make any sense at all.
What we need is GW telling us was Executioner (2+) really means, since Precision Strike usually doesn't work with bracketed numbers and a real TFG could even claim that it doesn't work at all because the rules don't tell us the meaning of the (2+).

Edit: Changed, thanks C'thulu

Maybe it's idiot proofing. Like in the rare case where an Overlord is suddenly able to hit on a 2+

I'm assuming that it's meant to give the overlord a high precision strike chance.

Also, if I may make a slight modification to that statement :

If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or higher To Hit with a Melee weapon. that hit is a 'Precision Strike'.

Have to factor in that +

What happens is that the Precision Strike USR is granted to successful ToHit rolls that happened to be 2 or higher. The rule does not grant a hit on 2+.

You follow the rules for determining if a hit is scored.



By making it Executioner 2+ it means that all successful hits will be Precision Strikes (rolls of 1 always miss).

This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.

Kangodo wrote:

I think it's a bit.. lame? It still forces you to buy an overcosted Monolith for your army.

You've completely missed the point of formations. They ARE supposed to make you want to buy such models. What'd be the point of formations that make good combinations and units even better. They're supposed to buff weaker stuff to force sales on what's in stock. Or at least provide new tactix.

I know, but people aren't going to buy Formations if all they contain are terrible overcosted units.

col_impact wrote:
This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.

Perhaps a thread about the 2+?
Because officially it doesn't do anything, only FNP and Poisoned have a description for numbers behind them.
If I don't miss anything.

The Exterminatus book does not list 2+ next to the executioner rule, at least not in the physical copy.

Yeah, that's the digital edition.
I guess they forgot it and you'd have to wait for a FAQ.

col_impact wrote:
I think you guys are misreading the rules involved.

Spoiler:

If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.
Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit you are attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.

The rule modifies hits that would have to be passed to it from a successful To Hit. It doesn't make hits on its own.

What happens is that the Precision Strike USR is granted to successful ToHit rolls that happened to be 2 or higher. The rule does not grant a hit on 2+.

You follow the rules for determining if a hit is scored.


By making it Executioner 2+ it means that all successful hits will be Precision Strikes (rolls of 1 always miss).

This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.

Honestly? It does seem pretty crystal clear from that wording, but in the opposite direction than you're saying.

"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2+ To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’." says, in clear language, that any precision strike result is considered a hit. A to hit roll that meets criteria X is a precision strike, which is in turn defined as a type of hit.

I'd agree it's not worthy of debate though: Any argument would devolve into nothing more than two sides giving increasingly convoluted and awkward explanations of what the two words "that hit" mean. You say it nebulously refers to if it would have hit anyway, I see it defining what happens when the criteria is met.

I usually fall on the conservative side of interpretations, but as far as I can see a Precision Strike is a hit by definition, and extending it to a 2+ instead of say, a mere 4 or 5+ probably wasn't the most sensible alteration to an existing rule.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I think you guys are misreading the rules involved.

Spoiler:

If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.
Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit you are attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.

The rule modifies hits that would have to be passed to it from a successful To Hit. It doesn't make hits on its own.

What happens is that the Precision Strike USR is granted to successful ToHit rolls that happened to be 2 or higher. The rule does not grant a hit on 2+.

You follow the rules for determining if a hit is scored.


By making it Executioner 2+ it means that all successful hits will be Precision Strikes (rolls of 1 always miss).

This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.

Honestly? It does seem pretty crystal clear from that wording, but in the opposite direction than you're saying.

"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2+ To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’." says, in clear language, that any precision strike result is considered a hit. A to hit roll that meets criteria X is a precision strike, which is in turn defined as a type of hit.

I'd agree it's not worthy of debate though: Any argument would devolve into nothing more than two sides giving increasingly convoluted and awkward explanations of what the two words "that hit" mean. You say it nebulously refers to if it would have hit anyway, I see it defining what happens when the criteria is met.

I usually fall on the conservative side of interpretations, but as far as I can see a Precision Strike is a hit by definition, and extending it to a 2+ instead of say, a mere 4 or 5+ probably wasn't the most sensible alteration to an existing rule.

We don't need to debate over what "that hit" means. What do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored? The rules are crystal clear about how you score hits. There is nothing in the Precision Strike rules that would indicate that it scores hits. However, it is abundantly clear that it modifies things that have been determined to be "hits". I suggest you go back and re-read the involved rules in their totality.





So again the question, what do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored?

col_impact wrote:
We don't need to debate over what "that hit" means. What do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored? The rules are crystal clear about how you score hits. There is nothing in the Precision Strike rules that would indicate that it scores hits. However, it is abundantly clear that it modifies hits that have been scored.

It says in plain language that when a precision strike result on a roll to hit occurs, it's a hit you can assign to a specific model. You can't, after all, score a precision miss.

Like I said, there's no point debating over it. I understand your perspective already, and see that it appears to hold no water. I doubt you aren't seeing the same inverted from over there. I don't have an alternate angle to convince you from, so unless you can find an alternate angle to convince me from, we'd just devolve into the worst type of internet debate: Increasingly wordy and frustrated statements of the same two basic points ad nauseum.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
We don't need to debate over what "that hit" means. What do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored? The rules are crystal clear about how you score hits. There is nothing in the Precision Strike rules that would indicate that it scores hits. However, it is abundantly clear that it modifies hits that have been scored.

It says in plain language that when a precision strike result on a roll to hit occurs, it's a hit you can assign to a specific model. You can't, after all, score a precision miss.

Like I said, there's no point debating over it. I understand your perspective already, and see that it appears to hold no water. I doubt you aren't seeing the same inverted from over there. I don't have an alternate angle to convince you from, so unless you can find an alternate angle to convince me from, we'd just devolve into the worst type of internet debate: Increasingly wordy and frustrated statements of the same two basic points ad nauseum.

There is nothing logically incorrect about assigning Precision Strike to a miss. It would just not do anything.

You are reading into the rules. You are in the awkward position of saying "that hit" has the rules force to say that a hit is scored or generated and that we will now modify it. However, the rule Precision strike has no indication that it generates hits, only that it takes hits and applies the Precision Strike rule. Please point to where it says that it generates or scores hits. Please point to the place in the rules where we generate hits.

You seem to think that the rule reads like this

"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or more To Hit with a Melee weapon, a hit is scored and that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’."

However, it does not read like that. It reads like this.

"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or more To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’."

col_impact wrote:
You are reading into the rules. You are in the awkward position of saying "that hit" has the rules force to say that a hit is scored or generated and that we will now modify it. However, the rule Precision strike has no indication that it generates hits, only that it takes hits and applies the Precision Strike rule. Please point to where it says that it generates or scores hits. Please point to the place in the rules where we generate hits.

Sure.

Advanced trumps basic.

The precision strike rule states that on a specific target number, normally 6 but in this case 2+, you apply a hit to a target of your chosing.

Was it originally designed under the assumption it would be a hit anyway? Absolutely. But that's not what it actually says. It tells you what to do when you roll the to hit dice.

If we're talking "awkward positions", you're saying that you have been granted permission to assign a hit you didn't score to a specific target.

Note that it doesn't say anything about modifying "that hit", it works on the assumption "that hit" exists and procedes from there. I'd apply the same argument to a situation where some obscure modifier meant you'd need to roll 7 to hit. If you had an ordinary precision strike weapon, you'd hit on a 6 anyway.

Now, clarifications as a reason for even going this far aside: Do you understand my base position? Not "Do you agree with it", just understand. If no, I can keep trying to clarify a little longer. Otherwise, we're probably done here.

changemod wrote:


Note that it doesn't say anything about modifying "that hit", it works on the assumption "that hit" exists and procedes from there.

We agree on this point. The rule itself proceed on hits that pre-exist. So what rule generates hits?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:


The precision strike rule states that on a specific target number, normally 6 but in this case 2+, you apply a hit to a target of your chosing.

It doesn't actually say 'that you apply a hit.' It says "that hit has the Precision Strike rule." You are reading in to the rules.

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:


Note that it doesn't say anything about modifying "that hit", it works on the assumption "that hit" exists and procedes from there.

We agree on this point. The rule itself proceed on hits that pre-exist. So what rule generates hits?

We do not agree on this point. The rule doesn't operate on pre-existing hits. It operates under the assumption that a Precision Strike is a hit.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:


Note that it doesn't say anything about modifying "that hit", it works on the assumption "that hit" exists and procedes from there.

We agree on this point. The rule itself proceed on hits that pre-exist. So what rule generates hits?

We do not agree on this point. The rule doesn't operate on pre-existing hits. It operates under the assumption that a Precision Strike is a hit.

Okay so the Precision Strike operates on hits.

So how are hits generated in the rules?

col_impact wrote:
It doesn't actually say 'that you apply a hit.' It says "that hit has the Precision Strike rule." You are reading in to the rules.

I can assure you, you're making a definite assumption here. You're assuming that referring to a hit is an order to go check elsewhere whether that hit would otherwise exist, rather than an order to proceed with resolving said hit.