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.

grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Being unable to nominate the unit breaks chain for being able to Deny, We're given permission to deny blessings, using the "Same process" therefore we would still have to nominate a unit as being unable to nominate a unit would leave you unable to follow all steps there after according to the 'same process'

And picking any unit you like is not only breaking a rule, but replacing it with a made up one.

And opens up Denying to abuse like... Denying a blessing with an improved agis model that was never targeted.

Skipping the first step is just as rule breaking as skipping part of the step. It's not even as abusive as you think it is. If someone has 4 or more successes, it's going to be hard to deny even with a re-roll. And it's not a permanent effect, all you have to do is remove the AV12 dreadnought, not exactly an impossible feat for most armies to do in a couple of turns.

Zimko wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
Why is ignoring part of one step any less valid than ignoring the whole step?

I suppose it's not, but that's HIWPI. I think we can all agree now that RAW is you can't DtW a power that doesn't target your units, so how you play it is up to you.

I agree, this is not going to be something resolved RAW. I've already emailed the FAQ department at GW, hopefully this gets answered in the near future.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
First can you prove that "none" isn't a valid option when picking a unit?

Yes, I can. the rule says, "select one of your units that was targeted by the psychic power." That means you pick one. It doesn't say you may, there is no option.

If it isn't an option, then the game breaks and grinds to a halt.
You can either move on, or invent a rule that's whide open to abuse. I prefer to break as few rules as possible.

Again, I argue that ignoring part of a step is no worse than completely ignoring it. You feel like this shouldn't be possible because it is easily abusable. I think the spirit of the rule implies that you still select a target to deny, as it states you don't get any bonuses (which implies that you have to select units that get a bonus to begin with).

 grendel083 wrote:
You're joking right? The rule says pick a unit that was targeted, and you want to pick one that wasn't. You don't think that's breaking a rule?

Rule is to follow the "same process' which includes nominating a unit to deny, where does it state you dont pick a unit, or no unit is allowed to be picked?

]Except you know full well that is NOT what the rule says. You must pick a unit that was targeted.

Strict RAW then means you cant deny a blessing at all as you cant follow the 'same process

First can you prove that "none" isn't a valid option when picking a unit?

Can you prove "none" IS a valid option? The DTW process refers to nominating a unit, if you're not able to then the process doesnt work. Regardless of being targeted, if you dont nominate a unit to deny blessings, then why the extra bit about not applying modifiers. Not having a unit deny would already have no modifiers, theres no unit to base modifiers off of.

You can either move on, or invent a rule that's whide open to abuse. I prefer to break as few rules as possible.

I'm inventing nothing, you're inventing the rule that you ignore the normal DTW process.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
You're joking right? The rule says pick a unit that was targeted, and you want to pick one that wasn't. You don't think that's breaking a rule?

Rule is to follow the "same process' which includes nominating a unit to deny, where does it state you dont pick a unit, or no unit is allowed to be picked?

Where does it state any unit may be picked?

]Except you know full well that is NOT what the rule says. You must pick a unit that was targeted.

Strict RAW then means you cant deny a blessing at all as you cant follow the 'same process

Yes, strict RaW the game grinds to a halt.

First can you prove that "none" isn't a valid option when picking a unit?

Can you prove "none" IS a valid option? The DTW process refers to nominating a unit, if you're not able to then the process doesnt work. Regardless of being targeted, if you dont nominate a unit to deny blessings, then why the extra bit about not applying modifiers. Not having a unit deny would already have no modifiers, theres no unit to base modifiers off of.

No I can't prove it. It's a unclear rule.

What is crystal clear however is that it never says you can pick a unit that wasn't targeted.

So you can either pick an unclear answer, break a rule and move one, or invent a rule open to abuse.
Your profile pick would seem to indicate why you're infavour of the "invented" option

You can either move on, or invent a rule that's whide open to abuse. I prefer to break as few rules as possible.

I'm inventing nothing, you're inventing the rule that you ignore the normal DTW process.

Nothing? You're suggesting picking any unit you like to deny, are you not? No rule says that. You honestly can't claim you're inventing nothing.

 grendel083 wrote:
No I can't prove it. It's a unclear rule.

What is crystal clear however is that it never says you can pick a unit that wasn't targeted.

So you can either pick an unclear answer, break a rule and move one, or invent a rule open to abuse.
Your profile pick would seem to indicate why you're infavour of the "invented" option

Its also clear that it never says you pick no unit at all.

So either we're breaking or inventing a rule, which is a bad option either way. In either case we're both inventing rules or lack there of to go by what we think, as it is an unclear rule.

RAW: Doesnt work as the process breaks down.

RAI: Well I'm a GK player, perhaps I'm a bit biased

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
RAW: Doesnt work as the process breaks down.

Agreed.

But it's new rules and there's still bugs to iron out.

But to give an example from your codex:
1). A Witchfire is used on a Hentchmen warband. There are no Psykers in or near the unit. They must be nominated, deny is on a 6+
2). A blessing is cast. You nominate a Dreadnought that was never targeted. Deny is on a 6+ with re-rolls.

Does this seem correct? That a power without a target can have a better chance of being denied than one that did?

 grendel083 wrote:

No I can't prove it. It's a unclear rule.

I can prove it is crystal clear. It says, "select one of your units that was a target of the enemy's psychic power." It does not say you may select a unit, it says select one. So we're left with selecting a unit that can't deny the witch. Further down, it says that you may DtW even if it isn't a power that targets your units. I would say that cancels out the part where it says "the target of the enemy psychic power." Yes, I realize that it says you, and not your unit, how many other instances are there of rolls that you make that aren't for a unit? The first roll-off, seizing, reserves, and mysterious objectives are all I've got.. It's not a leap of logic to assume that when you roll a DtW, you roll it for a unit. This is not RAW, but as we've seen, RAW doesn't work.

What is crystal clear however is that it never says you can pick a unit that wasn't targeted.

Then as you stated, the game breaks, and DtW against blessings and conjurations is impossible.

So you can either pick an unclear answer, break a rule and move one, or invent a rule open to abuse.
Your profile pick would seem to indicate why you're infavour of the "invented" option

We're ignoring less of the rule than you. I'd even argue that stopping psychic powers is less abusive than what some of those powers can do.

You can either move on, or invent a rule that's whide open to abuse. I prefer to break as few rules as possible.

Nothing? You're suggesting picking any unit you like to deny, are you not? No rule says that. You honestly can't claim you're inventing nothing.

Yes, a rule does say that. it's been quoted several times. Yes, as been stated, it only works on powers that target your unit. As you yourself stated, RAW, it breaks the game. We're only trying to modify as few rules as possible to make it work, rather than ignoring a whole section because we find it abusive.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
RAW: Doesnt work as the process breaks down.

Agreed.

But it's new rules and there's still bugs to iron out.

But to give an example from your codex:
1). A Witchfire is used on a Hentchmen warband. There are no Psykers in or near the unit. They must be nominated, deny is on a 6+
2). A blessing is cast. You nominate a Dreadnought that was never targeted. Deny is on a 6+ with re-rolls.

Does this seem correct? That a power without a target can have a better chance of being denied than one that did?

Fluff wise, makes sense to me the Aegis is supposed to defend against the warp.

Example 1: The warband is beign directly targeted so yes they should be the only ones that can affect it

Example 2: No target, wouldnt you select your best option to stop it if you had the choice and it didnt say you couldnt? Would make sense for the anti-daemon psyker army to use their best chance at stopping the enemy, but purely fluff.

Game mechanics, yea you usually pick your best option to stop something.

Though example 2 could also be: A blessing is cast, no one is targeted. You cant stop it because no one can because you dont know who can or if anyone can?

Which seems equally odd.

 IndigoJack wrote:
We're ignoring less of the rule than you.

I'm sorry, you're really not.

Both sides agree step one cannot be completed.

I'm suggesting skipping what it says in step one because it can't be done.
Your side is also skipping what it says in step one, and in addition making up a rule that allows you pick whatever unit you wish to deny with.

I'd even argue that stopping psychic powers is less abusive than what some of those powers can do.

Ha! The balance of Psychic powers is another discussion entirely. I didn't write the rules for powers, but yes I agree. They fixed so many broken problems with this game... then they invented the Daemonic discipline and broke it further!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Fluff wise, makes sense to me the Aegis is supposed to defend against the warp.

It is. But if you can choose to deny with any unit you like when there's no target, then why can't you just choose any unit when there is a target?

I mean the dread senses the power, and denies it. What difference would it make if it targeted someone else or no one?

You've got a game mechanic, that goes out of the way to say a power with no target can recieve no modifers. Seems like a blessing should be much harder to deny, that's what the rule is saying. So it makes no sense that you can pick any unit and deny it easier than a targeted witchfire.

 grendel083 wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
We're ignoring less of the rule than you.

I'm sorry, you're really not.

Both sides agree step one cannot be completed.

I'm suggesting skipping what it says in step one because it can't be done.
Your side is also skipping what it says in step one, and in addition making up a rule that allows you pick whatever unit you wish to deny with.

No, we're saying only skip the parts of step one that make it impossible to deny blessings/conjurations. So you still pick a unit, it just doesn't have to be the target (since we all agree that's impossible.) Not inventing anything extra, just removing the part that breaks the mechanic. Were even arguing that the game probably intended it to work this way, as it says you don't get any modifiers to deny, which is something that only a unit can get. What your saying, is omit that part entirely. So for a visual, here's our argument (omitted parts in brackets).

"To make a Deny the Witch test, first select one of your units [that was a target of the enemy's psychic power]."

Now, here's what your saying to omit.:

"To make a Deny the Witch test, [first select one of your units that was a target of the enemy's psychic power]."

That pretty clearly shows that you're omitting more of the rule than us. Additionally, we're not inventing anything, as we're in no way adding anything to the tex that's already written, just removing parts of it, same as you. Saying that we're inventing rules a a basless claim, when in reality we are doing no worse than you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
We're ignoring less of the rule than you.

I'm sorry, you're really not.

Both sides agree step one cannot be completed.

I'm suggesting skipping what it says in step one because it can't be done.
Your side is also skipping what it says in step one, and in addition making up a rule that allows you pick whatever unit you wish to deny with.

I'd even argue that stopping psychic powers is less abusive than what some of those powers can do.

Ha! The balance of Psychic powers is another discussion entirely. I didn't write the rules for powers, but yes I agree. They fixed so many broken problems with this game... then they invented the Daemonic discipline and broke it further!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

You've got a game mechanic, that goes out of the way to say a power with no target can recieve no modifers. Seems like a blessing should be much harder to deny, that's what the rule is saying. So it makes no sense that you can pick any unit and deny it easier than a targeted witchfire.

Any why would it go out of the way to mention no modifiers if only units can modify their DtW roll? It seems like a silly inclusion unless units can deny powers that don't target them.

I'm saying I'm choosing "no unit" rather than "that unit".
That's not such a stretch.

And the deny rule works perfectly well with no unit nominated.

Yours invents a rule of "pick whatever unit you like".
It's also clearly against the intent of the rule. The fact it says you can add "no modifiers" is clear you're not suppose to be adding things to it.
Then you're suggesting the technicality of a "re-roll isn't a modifier". You're inventing a rule, to abuse the system!

 grendel083 wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
We're ignoring less of the rule than you.

I'm sorry, you're really not.

Both sides agree step one cannot be completed.

I'm suggesting skipping what it says in step one because it can't be done.
Your side is also skipping what it says in step one, and in addition making up a rule that allows you pick whatever unit you wish to deny with.

I'd even argue that stopping psychic powers is less abusive than what some of those powers can do.

Ha! The balance of Psychic powers is another discussion entirely. I didn't write the rules for powers, but yes I agree. They fixed so many broken problems with this game... then they invented the Daemonic discipline and broke it further!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Fluff wise, makes sense to me the Aegis is supposed to defend against the warp.

It is. But if you can choose to deny with any unit you like when there's no target, then why can't you just choose any unit when there is a target?

I mean the dread senses the power, and denies it. What difference would it make if it targeted someone else or no one?

You've got a game mechanic, that goes out of the way to say a power with no target can recieve no modifers. Seems like a blessing should be much harder to deny, that's what the rule is saying. So it makes no sense that you can pick any unit and deny it easier than a targeted witchfire.

Well the rules are more specific when it comes to when there is an actual hostile target for the power, in that to do what you're describing requires having a psychic hood.

Blessings will be still hard to counter, only one army has the ability to reroll and they still need 6s and the equivalent 6s for sucesses. Especially due to the summoning stuff, would make sense the anti-daemon army would have a better shot of stopping that.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well the rules are more specific when it comes to when there is an actual hostile target for the power, in that to do what you're describing requires having a psychic hood.

Yes, a Pyschic hood is required to deny over a 12" distance.
Yet you want a model to potentially deny from across the board, without a hood? Even fluff this makes no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
would make sense the anti-daemon army would have a better shot of stopping that.

But Blessing isn't limited to Daemons, and we're talking about more than just summoning. This has far wider implications, and not just for Grey Knights.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well the rules are more specific when it comes to when there is an actual hostile target for the power, in that to do what you're describing requires having a psychic hood.

Yes, a Pyschic hood is required to deny over a 12" distance.
Yet you want a model to potentially deny from across the board, without a hood? Even fluff this makes no sense.

There is no distance requirement to deny a blessing, at all. How does the power being rejected for no reason at all after a successful cast make any sense in the fluff either?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
would make sense the anti-daemon army would have a better shot of stopping that.

But Blessing isn't limited to Daemons, and we're talking about more than just summoning. This has far wider implications, and not just for Grey Knights.

 grendel083 wrote:
I'm saying I'm choosing "no unit" rather than "that unit".
That's not such a stretch.

Your ignoring the whole step, we're ignoring part of it. How is ours any less of a stretch?

And the deny rule works perfectly well with no unit nominated.

Not even what we're arguing here.

Yours invents a rule of "pick whatever unit you like".
It's also clearly against the intent of the rule. The fact it says you can add "no modifiers" is clear you're not suppose to be adding things to it.
Then you're suggesting the technicality of a "re-roll isn't a modifier". You're inventing a rule, to abuse the system!

No invention required! We're clearly both ignoring parts of the steps to DtW, you're just ignoring more than us. I have added no words to what I outlined above, just removed the part that cause a contradiction.

Also, a re-roll has never been classified as a modifier. In fact, rules for modifying dice rolls are given on pg 11. Note, re-roll is not present. Do you also think that you shouldn't re-roll snap shots? Because pg. 33 says snap shots can't be modified (except under certain circumstances). So guide, prescience, and twin-linking shouldn't work for snap shots?

Your straw man argument that were wrong because we're trying to abuse the system isn't helping your case at all. Like I showed above, we are literally removing less of the rule than you to make it work.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Grey Knights are the only....grey area on this so to speak as theirs isnt a modifier + or -, its a reroll. The rule is to strictly affirm that 6's are what you need to deny blessings, but it doesnt mention at all rerolls.

It's the only one I can think of, there could well be others. And there likely will be in the future.
It's still a boost that could otherwise make it more efficient that denying a targeted power. To my mind that most certainly goes aginst the intent of the rule.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Grey Knights are the only....grey area on this so to speak as theirs isnt a modifier + or -, its a reroll. The rule is to strictly affirm that 6's are what you need to deny blessings, but it doesnt mention at all rerolls.

It's the only one I can think of, there could well be others. And there likely will be in the future.
It's still a boost that could otherwise make it more efficient that denying a targeted power. To my mind that most certainly goes aginst the intent of the rule.

Even with rerolls, denying a blessing will still be hard, which is the intent of the rule. Rolling 6s even with rerolls is still not great.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Grey Knights are the only....grey area on this so to speak as theirs isnt a modifier + or -, its a reroll. The rule is to strictly affirm that 6's are what you need to deny blessings, but it doesnt mention at all rerolls.

It's the only one I can think of, there could well be others. And there likely will be in the future.
It's still a boost that could otherwise make it more efficient that denying a targeted power. To my mind that most certainly goes aginst the intent of the rule.

Even with rerolls, denying a blessing will still be hard, which is the intent of the rule. Rolling 6s even with rerolls is still not great.

But it can be attempted by every army, unlike last edition

 IndigoJack wrote:
Your ignoring the whole step, we're ignoring part of it. How is ours any less of a stretch?

I'm not talking about changing less of the actual number of letters.

The lack of a comma can have a huge effect on a sentence. I'm sure your familiar with the example of eating Grandma?

Your suggestion is a much larger change to the rule than mine. You litterally are inventing a rule to pick whatever unit you wish. Which suddenly leads to other effects happening, like an Improved Aegis kicking in that the rule never allowed.

I'm accepting that you can't pick a unit, so I don't.

As being discussed in the other thread, I believe Kharn's rule would be applied if you could choose him as a target... thus an army with Kharn in it is as bad is an army with Runes of Warding from 5th edition in it.

Kharns rule is a modifier, it changes the number required to be rolled. Its strictly not allowed

 grendel083 wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
Your ignoring the whole step, we're ignoring part of it. How is ours any less of a stretch?

I'm not talking about changing less of the actual number of letters.

The lack of a comma can have a huge effect on a sentence. I'm sure your familiar with the example of eating Grandma?

Your suggestion is a much larger change to the rule than mine. You litterally are inventing a rule to pick whatever unit you wish. Which suddenly leads to other effects happening, like an Improved Aegis kicking in that the rule never allowed.

I'm accepting that you can't pick a unit, so I don't.

Again the rule says choose one unit that was the target... what you're saying is, don't choose a unit, what I'm saying is, just choose a unit, because the rules say you can still deny even if none of your units were the target. Again, not an invention, only omitting the part of the rule that creates a contradiction. You're going one step further, and omitting more of the rule to prevent abuse. Again, why would it say you can't modify DtW rolls against powers that don't target a unit, if only units can modify DtW rolls? There is no wargear in the game that modifies your DtW roll. Only that of a unit.

 IndigoJack wrote:
There is no wargear in the game that modifies your DtW roll. Only that of a unit.

Currently. They're possibly future-proofing. They've done it before.

rigeld2 wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
There is no wargear in the game that modifies your DtW roll. Only that of a unit.

Currently. They're possibly future-proofing. They've done it before.

They could be, but there are no powers that target "you", so why would a DtW roll be needed. If it was to nullify powers that don't target you, the modifier would be useless unless it said that it modifies powers even if they don't target you. And if it said that, again, why does the book say that no modifiers can used?

 IndigoJack wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 IndigoJack wrote:
There is no wargear in the game that modifies your DtW roll. Only that of a unit.

Currently. They're possibly future-proofing. They've done it before.

They could be, but there are no powers that target "you", so why would a DtW roll be needed. If it was to nullify powers that don't target you, the modifier would be useless unless it said that it modifies powers even if they don't target you. And if it said that, again, why does the book say that no modifiers can used?

Army wide special rule that gives you +1 on all DtW rolls. Would benefit when you're being targeted, but since they don't want that style of modifier helping you deny blessings, they wrote it out.

 IndigoJack wrote:
Again the rule says choose one unit that was the target

It does indeed.

what you're saying is, don't choose a unit,

I'm saying you can't. You admit that too. There is no valid unit to pick. I'm accepting that and moving on to the next step. You wish to invent a rule allowing you pick any unit you wish.

what I'm saying is, just choose a unit,

ANY unit, whichever you like. That's a huge change in the rule, allowing bonuses you should not be entitled to.

because the rules say you can still deny even if none of your units were the target.

And that works fine without a valid unit chosen.

Again, not an invention, only omitting the part of the rule that creates a contradiction.

Oh it's an invention. From targeted unit to whatever unit you want is a HUGE leap. You can try and claim you're changing one little word, but it's a big change, a big invention.

You're going one step further, and omitting more of the rule to prevent abuse.

I'm moving on from a step that can't be completed. I'm glad you acknowlege your proposal as abuse though. I don't see avoiding inventions of rules to avoid this as a bad thing.

Again, why would it say you can't modify DtW rolls against powers that don't target a unit, if only units can modify DtW rolls? There is no wargear in the game that modifies your DtW roll. Only that of a unit.

I said "potentially". If a unit has no Psyker, no rules... it's denying on a 6+ when targeted. You're invented rule allows for a better chance at denying than that.

You cant move on to the next step if you dont pick a unit, the first step is pick a unit. Where this breaks down is it doesnt give you permission to not pick a unit, or say what unit you can pick if you do have to pick a unit to DTW a power that doesnt target any of your units

Deciding a unit to pick is as much as making up of a rule as picking no unit. It doesnt say to do one or the other, it doesnt say either.

Picking no unit is inventing a rule.
PIcking whatever unit is inventing a rule.

At this point its a HIWP

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
You cant move on to the next step if you dont pick a unit, the first step is pick a unit. Where this breaks down is it doesnt give you permission to not pick a unit, or say what unit you can pick if you do have to pick a unit to DTW a power that doesnt target any of your units

Yes you can't pick a valid unit.
We've all accepted that.

Since the step can't be completed, move on?
Invent a rule to pick any unit?
Invent a rule to auto deny?

Yes I'm suggesting breaking a rule. The path of least resistance so to speak.

When given the choice of breaking a rule that can't be completed by moving on or inventing a rule open to abuse that gives a benefit that should not be given, I think the choice is clear.

Or we follow RaW and the game stops.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
You cant move on to the next step if you dont pick a unit, the first step is pick a unit. Where this breaks down is it doesnt give you permission to not pick a unit, or say what unit you can pick if you do have to pick a unit to DTW a power that doesnt target any of your units

Yes you can't pick a valid unit.
We've all accepted that.

Since the step can't be completed, move on?
Invent a rule to pick any unit?
Invent a rule to auto deny?

Yes I'm suggesting breaking a rule. The path of least resistance so to speak.

When given the choice of breaking a rule that can't be completed by moving on or inventing a rule open to abuse that gives a benefit that should not be given, I think the choice is clear.

Or we follow RaW and the game stops.

Well we dont know if the benefit was intended to be given to those types of DTW as opposed to normal DTW that targets a hostile.

I would argue your rule breaking is intended to give you an unfair advantage against me by denying me from using an ability I have.

The choice is not clear

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well we dont know if the benefit was intended to be given to those types of DTW as opposed to normal DTW that targets a hostile.

I would argue your rule breaking is intended to give you an unfair advantage against me by denying me from using an ability I have.

The choice is not clear

Well it's clearly not intended, being as no rule ever says to pick a unit other than those targeted.

You could claim it was intended to break, as that's what was actually written.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well we dont know if the benefit was intended to be given to those types of DTW as opposed to normal DTW that targets a hostile.

I would argue your rule breaking is intended to give you an unfair advantage against me by denying me from using an ability I have.

The choice is not clear

Well it's clearly not intended, being as no rule ever says to pick a unit other than those targeted.

You could claim it was intended to break, as that's what was actually written.

Its not clear its intended, if it was clear this argument wouldnt exist.

No rule states you pick no unit.

It was written how it was written, which prompted the argument.

I'm claiming it was intended you choose a unit, as the "No modifiers allowed" clause implies that one had already been chosen