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.

morgoth wrote:
@Sirlynchmob, it's 3 turns on average.
And he gives 4+ to seize, and he has 2+/3++, and ...

He may not be worth the points because Necron have better options, but he would be auto-take in many armies.

That being said, who the feth cares, that's not the topic.

Your "directly" interpretation does not stand, in the sentence you quoted it means precisely above, i.e. with no angle whatsoever, not physically close.

https://www.google.be/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=directly

directly
dɪˈrɛktli
adverb
1.
without changing direction or stopping.
"they went directly to the restaurant"
synonyms: straight, right, in a straight line, as the crow flies, by a direct route, without deviation, in a beeline, by the shortest route
"the hijacker ordered the crew to fly directly to New York"

In other words, learn english, thx.

Where do you see angle in that ?

Don't Forget tenet 6 from the forum:


As we are currently discussing option 2. rather than 1.

directly
adverb
2. with nothing or no one in between.

So you *could* say that terrain is something in between. Sirlynchmob is not wrong, but just has his own interpretation I disagree with and explained quite clearly why. No need to throw Dictionaries across the room...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Where do you see angle in that ?

Refering to my X and Y post i assume, where being slightly off-centre from above a model would create an angle from the vertical.

morgoth wrote:
@Sirlynchmob, it's 3 turns on average.
And he gives 4+ to seize, and he has 2+/3++, and...

He may not be worth the points because Necron have better options, but he would be auto-take in many armies.

No, not really. He's not worth it because he is crap.
4+ seize and a mediocre ability is not worth almost a Land Raider in points.

2+/3++ is great for in a challenge! Especially when he can hit with his Warscythe.. ooh wait.
Well, if his fists ever manage to kill a character you can get more wounds when you calculate the assault result.
That D3 is really going to help if you lost combat by at least 5 wounds.
But at least Flayed Ones don't scatter at a random unit, and at least he has a Phylactery and a decent ranged we.. crap again nothing.

Let's compare him to Coteaz!
+Half the points.
-Two less S and T, but majority Toughness cancels that out.
-No 3++
-30% chance to Seize the initiative instead of 50%
+Opponent has a 1 in 36 chance to seize initiative from you.
+A good shooting attack
+A special rule that benefits ranged armies.
+Stubborn, really helpful with Ld10
+Decent melee attacks.
+Psychic powers for more buffs from Divination.

The only issue being that he is not a Battle-brother.

Very clearly the rules imply option 1.

If they wanted to imply 2, they would've phrased it otherwise.

So yeah... dictionaries not always the best reference but I don't think we can seriously consider option 2 as what the authors meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

morgoth wrote:
@Sirlynchmob, it's 3 turns on average.
And he gives 4+ to seize, and he has 2+/3++, and...

He may not be worth the points because Necron have better options, but he would be auto-take in many armies.

No, not really. He's not worth it because he is crap.
4+ seize and a mediocre ability is not worth almost a Land Raider in points.

2+/3++ is great for in a challenge! Especially when he can hit with his Warscythe.. ooh wait.
Well, if his fists ever manage to kill a character you can get more wounds when you calculate the assault result.
That D3 is really going to help if you lost combat by at least 5 wounds.
But at least Flayed Ones don't scatter at a random unit, and at least he has a Phylactery and a decent ranged we.. crap again nothing.

Let's compare him to Coteaz!
+Half the points.
-Two less S and T, but majority Toughness cancels that out.
-No 3++
-30% chance to Seize the initiative instead of 50%
+Opponent has a 1 in 36 chance to seize initiative from you.
+A good shooting attack
+A special rule that benefits ranged armies.
+Stubborn, really helpful with Ld10
+Decent melee attacks.
+Psychic powers for more buffs from Divination.

The only issue being that he is not a Battle-brother.

Well, in codex Eldar Imotekh would be the best named character by a long shot

Coteaz seems to be well spammed though, so he's probably way undercosted and on another level for synergy.

And hitting anything on the table with 1 S8 hit per turn for three turns on average is not a mediocre ability.
No land raider will ever deal 30 S8 hits, or a lot more on MSU, and count as a warlord, and give you 4+ seize, and enable other units.
Even against Necrons it would be very good, for breaking Quantum Shielding for free.

Yeah i agree that it is option 1. too, IE "in a straight line" above the unit, so vertical above it (in X and Y coordinate) but you cannot really stop players from reading it as 2. because it also (not very much) works as an interpretation.

But i'd really think of the GW "there is no up and down in the game" ruleset here to go for 1.

Honestly, I believe that people who read it as 2 need to improve their knowledge of English.

I can totally accept the fact that some people may have a limited knowledge of the language, but it's their responsibility not to argue over the meaning of a word they do not perfectly understand.

Otherwise, they can simply start arguments all the time and force others to double check the official meaning of the word, which is just rude.

morgoth wrote:
Honestly, I believe that people who read it as 2 need to improve their knowledge of English.

I can totally accept the fact that some people may have a limited knowledge of the language, but it's their responsibility not to argue over the meaning of a word they do not perfectly understand.

Otherwise, they can simply start arguments all the time and force others to double check the official meaning of the word, which is just rude.

And what is the official meaning of the word?

These are accepted and official meanings of the word

2. with nothing or no one in between.
b : in immediate physical contact

So where is the definition you want to use defined as the official one, and I'm glad you can admit you're being rude.

morgoth wrote:
Well, in codex Eldar Imotekh would be the best named character by a long shot

Coteaz seems to be well spammed though, so he's probably way undercosted and on another level for synergy.

And hitting anything on the table with 1 S8 hit per turn for three turns on average is not a mediocre ability.
No land raider will ever deal 30 S8 hits, or a lot more on MSU, and count as a warlord, and give you 4+ seize, and enable other units.
Even against Necrons it would be very good, for breaking Quantum Shielding for free.

But would it be an auto-take in an Eldar-list? I think not.

You might want to recalculate.
It's an average of 0.58 hit and against MEQ an average 0.16 unsaved wound.
And you'll be paying only 225 points for that! But you are right, it's not a mediocre ability. It's a crap ability.
Maybe you want to go into a Necron-tactic thread and tell people how great Imotekh is?

From the reading it looks like we are back to you can run RAW and not have concrete answers or we can use the 6th FAQ and have answers.

Sorry for the free derail though, I need to calculate. MEQ is a bad joke to calculate Imotekh's value though

SirLynchMob,
Trying to say 'Well this one attack is not powerful in any case, so denying the saves is not a Shenanigan' is a very poor argument to take. If anything it proves the opposite argument a little better, if it really isn't that big of a deal then denying a Cover Save based on a single meaning of a single word would be the more ******* behaviour. Besides this entire situation is not just limited to one single Model, many situations require the use of Random Allocation, and whom knows exactly how powerful and game turning those situations will be. Therefore we have to simply remove the who and focus on the why and how, which means returning to what was written in the book and what the Authors might of intended with the words they chose.

It is always going to come back to this:
Why would the Author tell us how to determine if the Model in question is Obstructed, literally using the words Determine and Obstruction within the sentence, if they intended for Models to always be visible?

JinxDragon wrote:
SirLynchMob,
Trying to say 'Well this one attack is not powerful in any case, so denying the saves is not a Shenanigan' is a very poor argument to take. If anything it proves the opposite argument a little better, if it really isn't that big of a deal then denying a Cover Save based on a single meaning of a single word would be the more ******* behaviour. Besides this entire situation is not just limited to one single Model, many situations require the use of Random Allocation, and whom knows exactly how powerful and game turning those situations will be. Therefore we have to simply remove the who and focus on the why and how, which means returning to what was written in the book and what the Authors might of intended with the words they chose.

It is always going to come back to this:
Why would the Author tell us how to determine if the Model in question is Obstructed, literally using the words Determine and Obstruction within the sentence, if they intended for Models to always be visible?

Not single, multiple meanings that go well with the context.
I answered that twice now, How about you address my 2 scenarios.

after allocation, the attack come from above the unit, can you look from all heights and above all models in the unit til you find a spot that grants a cover save? while ignoring the magnitude of other spots that wouldn't grant one?

As we've agreed before and I'm glad someone else brought it up, it really is a 2D game, so placing the spot in immediate physical contact would seem like the proper context to me.

As i posted before, immediately above would make no sense. It's more like "infinitely above".

Take the Stratosphere as your reference point if it helps?

Sirlynchmob,

Answer:
1) Redundant
2) Irrelevant
Nether question brings us closer to why the Authors told us how to determine Obstruction on a Randomly Allocated Wound if they intended for the Model to never be Obstructed....

BlackTalos,
It does make sense as that meaning can be applied, though holding the marker in that position might be impossible thanks to the Terrain itself.
The problem is it renders instructions telling us how to go about determining if the Model is Obstructed completely moot, and seeing as this is an Authors Intent argument the sentence needs to have a purpose to exist....

That is sort of what i meant:

When a rule starts with the words "For the purposes of determining if the model is obscured..." Why would you pick the model itself? (because 0.0000001nm away from your model makes it pretty much the model)

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob,

Answer:
1) Redundant
2) Irrelevant
Nether question brings us closer to why the Authors told us how to determine Obstruction on a Randomly Allocated Wound if they intended for the Model to never be Obstructed....

BlackTalos,
It does make sense as that meaning can be applied, though holding the marker in that position might be impossible thanks to the Terrain itself.
The problem is it renders instructions telling us how to go about determining if the Model is Obstructed completely moot, and seeing as this is an Authors Intent argument the sentence needs to have a purpose to exist....

the answers are not redundant and irrelevant, the speak highly towards consistency. We both know you have no rules basis for either answer.

Just because the authors saw a need for its inclusion, doesn't mean that what you are suggest is correct. There can be a very good reason for it to be there that doesn't lead to 'keep moving the point til I get a save'

And BlackTalos, using the statosphere can be used for RAW as we are told to consider the attack coming from the sky. But when you look up, do you see the sky? I have a few ceilings above me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just see it the opposite way than you do.

Still comes back to this one question:
Why would the Authors tell us how we determine obstruction if there is no chance of ever being obstructed?

You can state you don't know why the Author penned the instructions but it is undeniable that they have done so.
So how can an interpretation which renders what the Author penned null-and-void be considered the Author's Intent?

sirlynchmob wrote:
And BlackTalos, using the statosphere can be used for RAW as we are told to consider the attack coming from the sky. But when you look up, do you see the sky? I have a few ceilings above me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just see it the opposite way than you do.

Which is why i posted this:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I'm not at a Rulebook currently to check, but have they removed the "your battle-board" statement? The beginning of the BRB used to describe how everything you play on is part of your game.
IE "above" the unit is anything that is part of the board (Ruins / Trees / a Titan) as opposed to the first "Off-board" obstruction (Ceiling/ Trees(playing outside?)/ Roof)

Are ceilings part of your gaming table? If you agree as much with your opponent then i would not see why they would be affected by lightning...

 Pyeatt wrote:
His lightning comes from the sky. It says it counts as hitting on side armor because we don't play Flames of War, so we don't have top armor values. Is the model under a roof? If not, no cover save.

Orbital Bombardments also come from 'the sky', yet they allow all sorts of cover saves.

It would make sense to rule it like orbital bombardment.

And it would make sense to rule it like above + area + special rules cover only.

Doesn't lightning come from the ground?

 Sautek Supreme wrote:
Doesn't lightning come from the ground?

Ah, there's always one smart alec
Yes, indeed, the first bolt goes from the ground to the cloud - creating the ionised (I think that's the right word) path for the other bolts to come down. Google some pictures folks, it's quite interesting.

morgoth wrote:
It would make sense to rule it like orbital bombardment.

And it would make sense to rule it like above + area + special rules cover only.

Except ob has different rules - it is explicitly shooting and explicitly is "fired" by the cm. so no, it doesn't make sense as it is an incomparable situation.

I think it's a comparable situation but we'll see when there's a new necron codex that was not written ages ago for a very different version.

Even in 5th the rules off claiming cover were based on TLOS, and measuring from the firing model. This was backed up by the FAQ

This hasn't changed.

There are significant differences which you have not / cannot address between a cm and imotekh. Another being OB is actually a weapon.

 Quanar wrote:

 Sautek Supreme wrote:
Doesn't lightning come from the ground?

Ah, there's always one smart alec
Yes, indeed, the first bolt goes from the ground to the cloud - creating the ionised (I think that's the right word) path for the other bolts to come down. Google some pictures folks, it's quite interesting.

I actually wasn't trying to be a smart alec, it was just that some folks were trying to make the LOS argument for where the lightning actually came from. HIWPI would be no cover saves, especially since models can be struck by lightning while Imhotek is in reserves.

 Sautek Supreme wrote:
Doesn't lightning come from the ground?

Some does, there is also cloud to cloud lightning, and cloud to ground lightning.