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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 16:50:39
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
DaPino wrote:Angelic wrote:Okay, so you agree then that the power must bypass it. Who then chooses which model "suffers" wounds in the event the caster doesn't exceed the WC cost?
If the power is WC2 and you get 2 successes, you resolve the power against the closest model. This is clearly stated in the rules for focussed witchfire powers.
edit: Wounds are still not being allocated, they are being suffered.
Where do you get the rules for the closest model "suffering" the wound?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/04 16:52:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:14:51
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
The thing I hate about Wounds and Wounds is that the Authors called both of them Wounds... Suffers a Wound talks about a specific action: The Wound Characteristic being reduced by 1 Allocate a Wound talks about a specific action: Assigning a hit, which is known to be life threatening, to particular Models The most common way for the first to occur is for the second one to have occurred, for a 'wound' to have been generated and allocated, but it is not a requirement at all. It is not the only way the first can occur though, there are many actions which cause a Model to suffer a Wound. These bypass the allocation process completely and simply have the wound occur to a particular Model, often chosen through some random element prior. Any suffered Wounds which have not been allocated prevent Look-Out-Sir, as that specifically occurs during the Allocation process and not every time a Wound is suffered. The reason I have not talked about focussed Witchfires directly is one simple reason: It is the wording in the individual Power which will tell you how to continue, they could have us Allocate something. One of the interesting things to notice about focused Witchfires is that they do Not have a profile! - PS: Maybe Psychic Screech is meant to be a focused Witchfire? - Still would require some sort of re-write to give us an Allocation method as the Unit as a whole is targeted.... Instead of a profile, these powers have instructions telling us that the individual targeted Model suffers X. Any Hit's generated, Wound's generated or anything else that is being resolved does so against the individual Model which was selected as the target of this power. The positive side, there is no reason these Wounds or Hits would bled over into the rest of the Unit should the original target be Removed as a Casualty. Of course, the vast majority of these powers have Rules which inform us what to do when the Target is removed as a Casualty, so they already take this into account.... Automatically Appended Next Post: Angelic, The Focused Witchfire Rule itself states to resolve the power against the Closest Model if the Charges do not exceed.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/11/04 17:27:55
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:25:16
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
The Focused Witchfire Rule itself states to resolve the power against the Closest Model if the Charges do not exceed.
What's the exact wording? I don't have my rule book in front of me, so my question is does it say "as normal" as part of that rule.
But it some ways I guess DaPino assumed I was disagreeing with him, which resulted in some unnecessary animosity. I was not. Simply, my position was that Focussed Witchfire itself does not override the rules for allocation, but the powers themselves might. If they do, how do we choose who suffers the wounds generated. So not really a disagreement with DaPino. I guess he just didn't understand where my questions were directed. I focused more on the general question posed rather than individual powers.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/04 17:29:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:27:04
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Angelic wrote:JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
The Focused Witchfire Rule itself states to resolve the power against the Closest Model if the Charges do not exceed.
What's the exact wording? I don't have my rule book in front of me, so my question is does it say "as normal" as part of that rule.
"If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:31:48
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote:Angelic wrote:JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
The Focused Witchfire Rule itself states to resolve the power against the Closest Model if the Charges do not exceed.
What's the exact wording? I don't have my rule book in front of me, so my question is does it say "as normal" as part of that rule.
"If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."
So we do have a way to choose which model "suffers" in the event the power itself doesn't "allocate" wounds. It then seems to me that the answer to the OP's question is, "It depends on the power."
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/04 17:32:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:32:11
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Angelic wrote:DaPino wrote:Angelic wrote:Okay, so you agree then that the power must bypass it. Who then chooses which model "suffers" wounds in the event the caster doesn't exceed the WC cost?
If the power is WC2 and you get 2 successes, you resolve the power against the closest model. This is clearly stated in the rules for focussed witchfire powers.
edit: Wounds are still not being allocated, they are being suffered.
Where do you get the rules for the closest model "suffering" the wound?
I see I forgot something, which is my fault and I apologize. Indeed, not every Focussed witchfire describes its effect as 'suffering a wound'.
Crush is an example, and indeed, a look out, Sir! can be taken against it.
The Focussed witchfire powers I had in mind were 'hemorrhage' and 'Psychic overload' (the new Nid unit's psychic power). And they explicitly mention 'suffering wounds'. They should not allow a LOS roll as per my arguments.
So in general, a LOS roll can be taken against Focussed witchfire powers but some of them (if memory serves me right most of them) have a specific wording that does not allow a LOS roll. It depends on the power, I agree.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/04 17:34:19
You don't have to be happy when you lose, just don't make winning the condition of your happiness. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:33:21
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
DaPino wrote:
So in general, a LOS roll can be taken against Focussed witchfire powers but some of them (if memory serves me right most of them) have a specific wording that does not allow a LOS roll. Agreed?
Indeed.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/04 17:33:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 17:41:30
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
I would write it in reverse, being a permission based system we are dealing with: Look-out-Sir can not be taken, unless the Power contains instructions allowing it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/04 17:42:00
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 22:14:57
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
No because when you hit someone with Crush for example, you allocate a wound. You can take LOS whenever a wound is allocated, this is clearly written in the rulebook without any room for interpretation.
P100, the top right.
|
You don't have to be happy when you lose, just don't make winning the condition of your happiness. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 22:36:23
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Dapino, Where does it say to Allocate a Wound within the Crush Power itself? Now I am not at the book, going from memory when I reviewed it this morning, but I am sure it stated something along the lines of: The Target Model suffers a Hit.... Not only does the Power resolve against a specific Model that is nominated prior to this point, but what is being Resolved is not even a Wound at this point. As a Character does not automatically gain the ability to re-allocate any and all Wounds, only those which are assigned to the Model during the Allocation process, I can not see how Look-out-sir would allow the whole power to be resolved against a non-targeted Model.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/04 22:37:37
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 23:01:06
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I don't necessarily see the need to define a default position, but it seems to me a good rule of thumb is if it uses the "Roll to Wound" mechanic, i.e. S v T, it must use the allocation rules because they are a subheading of "Roll to Wound". But, if it doesn't roll to wound in the traditional sense, like a Characteristic test, it is likely that it doesn't "allocate" a wound. Crush would be the former, Hemorrhage would be the latter.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/04 23:01:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/04 23:26:23
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Angelic, Why are required to nominate an individual Model as the Target to begin with? Should we be returning to the default Shooting sequence, unchanged by the fact the sequence is targeting an individual Model instead of the Unit as a whole, then instructions to nominate that Target are pointless. The To Hit portion of the Rule would be resolved identically against a single Model as it would a whole Unit. The To Wound portion would be resolved against majority toughness, as those are also instructions that following the default sequence informs us to do. Only then do we encounter instructions telling us to Allocate any Wounds, instructions which require us to Allocate those Wounds to the closest Model to the 'firing' Unit. That would render the entire instructions to nominate a specific Model to resolve the Power against pointless, as the Power does not contain any specific instructions telling us to ignore Allocation. Unless all of that is covered by Basic vs Advanced, with the instructions telling us to Resolve the power against a specific Model being more Advanced then the Basic Rules of Allocation.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/11/04 23:54:24
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 15:35:02
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
JinxDragon wrote:Angelic,
Why are required to nominate an individual Model as the Target to begin with?
Should we be returning to the default Shooting sequence, unchanged by the fact the sequence is targeting an individual Model instead of the Unit as a whole, then instructions to nominate that Target are pointless. The To Hit portion of the Rule would be resolved identically against a single Model as it would a whole Unit. The To Wound portion would be resolved against majority toughness, as those are also instructions that following the default sequence informs us to do. Only then do we encounter instructions telling us to Allocate any Wounds, instructions which require us to Allocate those Wounds to the closest Model to the 'firing' Unit. That would render the entire instructions to nominate a specific Model to resolve the Power against pointless, as the Power does not contain any specific instructions telling us to ignore Allocation.
Unless all of that is covered by Basic vs Advanced, with the instructions telling us to Resolve the power against a specific Model being more Advanced then the Basic Rules of Allocation.
The rules for Witchfire say that we resolve against "closest target models". So it's a requirement of Witchfires, though it sometimes is pointless depending on the power. I don't believe it's a case of instructions telling us to "ignore" allocation. It's a case of the resolution not hitting an "allocation" step along its way to complete resolution.
Lets assume the player doesn't get to choose so we default to closest model:
In the case of Crush, we target and roll to hit. We then get to the remaining text telling us it has a Strength value. Strength values are meaningless unless you use the "Roll to Wound" rules contained in the Shooting rules. As part of the Roll to Wound, we are told that wounds are placed into a wound pool and then allocated from that pool. In this instance, the rules for Witchfires nominating a specific model are pointless because we have the wound pool allocation rules.
In the case of Hemorrhage, again target, roll to hit. Then the text tells us to perform the Toughness tests. Specific Model is pointless up to here because we use majority. However, what do we do with any wounds? The Shooting rules don't contain any rules about wounds generated via Characteristic Tests, only "Roll to Wound". At this point, the specific model chosen by the Witchfire rules kicks in telling us we resolve it against the targeted model.
So, sometimes the rules in the Witchfire section choosing specific models are pointless, sometimes not.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/05 15:35:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 15:40:24
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Angelic wrote:In the case of Crush, we target and roll to hit. We then get to the remaining text telling us it has a Strength value. Strength values are meaningless unless you use the "Roll to Wound" rules contained in the Shooting rules. As part of the Roll to Wound, we are told that wounds are placed into a wound pool and then allocated from that pool. In this instance, the rules for Witchfires nominating a specific model are pointless because we have the wound pool allocation rules.
Clear case of advanced vs basic. There's a conflict in which rule to follow (wound pool and allocate, or closest model suffers) so the advanced rule wins.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 15:43:37
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
JinxDragon wrote:Dapino,
Where does it say to Allocate a Wound within the Crush Power itself?
Now I am not at the book, going from memory when I reviewed it this morning, but I am sure it stated something along the lines of: The Target Model suffers a Hit.... Not only does the Power resolve against a specific Model that is nominated prior to this point, but what is being Resolved is not even a Wound at this point. As a Character does not automatically gain the ability to re-allocate any and all Wounds, only those which are assigned to the Model during the Allocation process, I can not see how Look-out-sir would allow the whole power to be resolved against a non-targeted Model.
in the case of crush it states suffers a hit.
as a witchfire power it is a shooting attack.
so the hit is resolved according to the shooting rules.
in that case after resolving if the model is hit, you roll to wound as per shooting which generates a wound pool. If you got to pick the model that suffered the hit, at this point the wound pool is on that model but it is an allocated wound still as per the wounds for shooting, even though it can be only allocated to 1 model in that wound pool. As such it can be LOS!ed.
to parallel it, looking at precision shot, you get to allocate the hit, so it creates a hit on a singular model, which creates a wound pool that can only be allocated to that model, and as per the rules for precision shot that wound can be LOS!ed as it is also allocated.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/05 15:44:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 15:48:16
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote:Angelic wrote:In the case of Crush, we target and roll to hit. We then get to the remaining text telling us it has a Strength value. Strength values are meaningless unless you use the "Roll to Wound" rules contained in the Shooting rules. As part of the Roll to Wound, we are told that wounds are placed into a wound pool and then allocated from that pool. In this instance, the rules for Witchfires nominating a specific model are pointless because we have the wound pool allocation rules.
Clear case of advanced vs basic. There's a conflict in which rule to follow (wound pool and allocate, or closest model suffers) so the advanced rule wins.
I don't believe that is accurate. The Witchfire rules state that the "hits are allocated to the closest target models". There is no conflict when we get to the "Roll to Wound" stage, because which model is hit is meaningless once we get to wound allocation.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 15:50:10
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Angelic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Angelic wrote:In the case of Crush, we target and roll to hit. We then get to the remaining text telling us it has a Strength value. Strength values are meaningless unless you use the "Roll to Wound" rules contained in the Shooting rules. As part of the Roll to Wound, we are told that wounds are placed into a wound pool and then allocated from that pool. In this instance, the rules for Witchfires nominating a specific model are pointless because we have the wound pool allocation rules.
Clear case of advanced vs basic. There's a conflict in which rule to follow (wound pool and allocate, or closest model suffers) so the advanced rule wins.
I don't believe that is accurate. The Witchfire rules state that the "hits are allocated to the closest target models". There is no conflict when we get to the "Roll to Wound" stage, because which model is hit is meaningless once we get to wound allocation.
The discussion is on focused witchfires (which is what Crush is), correct? Because those rules state, as I quoted ""If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead.""
Note that it doesn't mentioned allocated.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 16:05:00
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote:Angelic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Angelic wrote:In the case of Crush, we target and roll to hit. We then get to the remaining text telling us it has a Strength value. Strength values are meaningless unless you use the "Roll to Wound" rules contained in the Shooting rules. As part of the Roll to Wound, we are told that wounds are placed into a wound pool and then allocated from that pool. In this instance, the rules for Witchfires nominating a specific model are pointless because we have the wound pool allocation rules.
Clear case of advanced vs basic. There's a conflict in which rule to follow (wound pool and allocate, or closest model suffers) so the advanced rule wins.
I don't believe that is accurate. The Witchfire rules state that the "hits are allocated to the closest target models". There is no conflict when we get to the "Roll to Wound" stage, because which model is hit is meaningless once we get to wound allocation.
The discussion is on focused witchfires (which is what Crush is), correct? Because those rules state, as I quoted ""If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead.""
Note that it doesn't mentioned allocated.
But resolution might include a wound allocation step. It doesn't speak to whether there is one or not, so there isn't a conflict. If you are resolving a power that causes a hit with a strength value, you have resolved the power against the targeted model per the Focused rules, but the hit is meaningless because we get to the allocation rules in the "Roll to Wound". It causes a problem actually trying to snipe models because choosing which models are hit is often pointless. Precision shot works better in this regard as a rule because it recognizes 40k doesn't allocate hits most of the time, but allocates wounds. It would have been much better if Focused Witchfire said "Resolve against the model you chose with any wounds being allocated by you." If we get locked into the entirety of the power being resolved against the single model, wouldn't that mean that no matter how many hits or wounds are generated, only that model can be affected? It doesn't give you permission to allocate, choose, etc. beyond that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 16:08:21
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Absolutely correct - only that single model will take any wounds.
This is because if you attempt to cause a wound to another model, you're not resolving the power against the closest model in the target unit.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 16:17:09
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote:Absolutely correct - only that single model will take any wounds.
This is because if you attempt to cause a wound to another model, you're not resolving the power against the closest model in the target unit.
So your saying that unlike standard Witchfires, Focused can only ever affect one model (standard uses the plural, Focused doesn't in either case)? Definitely an interesting take. Certainly makes it "focused". In that instance, it would create a conflict with the wound allocation rules. I wonder how many would be happy with "No, you can't LOS, but you can only kill 1 model"? (Hemorrhage has a mechanic to go beyond). Definitely something to ponder.
Edit: Cursory review looks like most only affect 1 model anyway. So not a drawback. But it would also mean that even if you don't exceed the cost, if a Character is the closest model, it can't LOS!
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/11/05 16:22:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 17:05:52
Subject: Re:Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Of course you can "Look Out Sir" wounds caused by a Focused Witchpower. Simply because the Focused Witchpower rule doesn't say "wound is allocated" doesn't matter.
The Focused Witchfire rule is written from the perspective that ANY type of psychic power could result from it. A Focused Witchfire power could result in instant death, a toughness check or die, an initiative test or suffer a wound, a strength test, a test that depends on it being in terrain... ANYTHING. This is why the power only gives you the rule for what model is AFFECTED by the power.
So the Focused Witchfire doesn't mention wounds or allocating wounds because it doesn't HAVE to. The POWER is what mentions wounds.
So ergo, if you have a Focused Witchfire which "affects the model" and it affects that model by causing a "hit" or a "wound" then you are allocating wounds to that model, per the power. So if a power says that a target suffers a wound, in my mind that's exactly the same as allocating a wound to that model, thus it takes a "Look Out Sir" roll if it's able to do so.
NOW, if you want to argue something weird like the "Spontaneous Combustion" power doesn't allow you a "Look Out Sir" because you're not really "allocating" the wound that it causes since it only hits one specific model, then that's something different, but I personally don't see how it makes a difference at all. The model takes a hit, and if the hit succeeds, the wound is allocated to it, just like if you'd shot it with a pistol. Arguing anything else I don't think fits with the rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 17:08:07
Subject: Re:Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:Of course you can "Look Out Sir" wounds caused by a Focused Witchpower. Simply because the Focused Witchpower rule doesn't say "wound is allocated" doesn't matter.
It really does - words matter.
So ergo, if you have a Focused Witchfire which "affects the model" and it affects that model by causing a "hit" or a "wound" then you are allocating wounds to that model, per the power. So if a power says that a target suffers a wound, in my mind that's exactly the same as allocating a wound to that model, thus it takes a "Look Out Sir" roll if it's able to do so.
It might be that way in your mind, but that's not what the actual rules say.
NOW, if you want to argue something weird like the "Spontaneous Combustion" power doesn't allow you a "Look Out Sir" because you're not really "allocating" the wound that it causes since it only hits one specific model, then that's something different, but I personally don't see how it makes a difference at all. The model takes a hit, and if the hit succeeds, the wound is allocated to it, just like if you'd shot it with a pistol. Arguing anything else I don't think fits with the rules.
It's been shown how it fits in the rules. Please actually cite rule to support your statement.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 17:45:08
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Blatoff, Precision Strikes allocate the Wound, not the Hit. 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. Big difference when your using a Rule which states: When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, Angelic, Notice how most of them also contain instructions on what to do when the targeted Model is Removed as a Casualty, particularly those which can generate multiple Wounds against the Model? It is my belief that the Author does Intend for powers which could do more damage then a single Wound to still effect multiple Models within the Unit, but not through Wound Allocation.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/05 17:46:32
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 19:05:00
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
JinxDragon wrote:
It is my belief that the Author does Intend for powers which could do more damage then a single Wound to still effect multiple Models within the Unit,
I also believe that they probably intended for multiple wounds to continue on past the closest, or player chosen, model. Too bad its not written that way in the FW rules. Obviously, I don't believe that means they can't, it just means that absent some language passing it on to other models in the power itself, like in Hemorrhage, they don't.
I disagree with this part though. I believe that GW rules writers don't parse their rules down like this. If they ever thought about rules in this manner, we wouldn't have the sloppy writing that we do. Good lord, looking at the pics of the rules for the new bugz, they will need some fixing. I believe they intended that anytime a wound is caused, it is sufficient for a Look Out, Sir! Of course, my belief doesn't matter for this forum.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/05 19:06:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 19:40:49
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Angelic, When marked as such, it matters a great deal: For example, I am not going to argue with you over a Rule as Written technicality when it is no longer relevant to the discussion at hand. The concept that the Authors Intended for a Look Out, Sir test every time a Character takes a Wound is not far fetched and there is even some evidence that this might actually be correct. There are redundant reference to Look Out, Sir in a number of Rules which use the 'Suffer a Wound' terminology, situations where no Wound is Allocated for the Look Out, Sir Rule to trigger in the first place. Given that many of us want to separate 'Suffers a Wound' and 'Allocate a Wound' because they are very different things, the use of redundancy within these Rules is a little bit of a concern when we try and figure out what the Author might of Intended over what they have Written. One thing I have always been curious about is the existence of redundant Rules because... well, why have them? We could always simply highlight them as a symptom of poor Rule Writing for sure, but there is always the possibility that the Author believed they where addressing something specific. For that reason, it never ha sat right for me when we wave instructions away as 'redundant' even when it is obviously redundant. The inclusion of Look Out, Sir within Rules dealing with Suffered Wounds, not Allocated Wounds, are far from 'Obviously Redundant' because it is only Redundant from a Rule as Written perspective... it doesn't mention Allocation so why would Look Out, Sir trigger? The Authors clearly believed it was worth mention, so maybe they did Intend for 'Suffer a Wound' to be enough to trigger Look Out, Sir but simply forgot to write it in a way that allowed for such to occur. There is something else to keep in mind when it comes to Authors Intent: The Basic Rulebooks are written by many hands, there is not a single Author behind this work. This creates the additional possibility that one Authors simply believed, in error, that they needed to address a certain situation. The situation addressed will never occur, because the Rules never allow it, but that won't stop a Redundant Rule from being written. This is what clearly what leads to Exceptions being written for Restrictions that simply do not exist, another version of 'Redundant Rules' which can be found in the Basic Rulebook itself, after all. That makes it insanely difficult to figure out what the Authors Intended, but doesn't stop it being an interesting discussion in and of itself.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/05 19:49:45
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/05 19:57:38
Subject: Focused Witchfire - can you Look Out Sir?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
JinxDragon wrote:
That makes it insanely difficult to figure out what the Authors Intended, but doesn't stop it being an interesting discussion in and of itself.
True enough.
|
|
 |
 |
|