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.

Solar Shock wrote:

swculve wrote:


Modifiers:
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any mulipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values"

The lance effect is not a model rule, its a weapon profile rule. They do not conflict because you are not applying the lance affect at the same time.

-----------------------------------------------------
You target a model.

That model when you look at its characteristics at that point in time you do the following;
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any mulipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values"

From this the Garks AV is 13.
You Roll to hit with your STR 8 lance shot. You Hit. Even if you again decide to look at the models characteristics at this point in time its AV is still 13.
You roll to penetrate, At this point you are applying the lance effect to a shot hitting a model already under the effect of QS. The lance rule then dictates that its AV13 is > 12, thus its AV value is set to 12 for that shot.
------------------------------------------------

Even IF you decided to say; Ok my STR8 lance shot has hit, I rolled a 4 on the dice, thus making my shot STR12, lets now look at the Garks AV to see whether I do anything. The Gark at this point is NOT a MODEL with a RULE giving it AV 12. Its a model with QS giving it AV13.

So your STR12 shot doesn't do anything..... except you have the lance special rule and this states that if AV =>12, AV =12. Thus you get a glance.

RAW
A weapon is not a model, the rule quoted does not conflict because at no point what so ever are you applying two set values simultaneously.

Your flawed argument aside, both rules absolutely apply at the same time. Both apply when you make your AV roll to determine penetration.

Fragile wrote:

Your flawed argument aside, both rules absolutely apply at the same time. Both apply when you make your AV roll to determine penetration.

Find me a rule that states you apply affects from weapon profiles at the same time as determining model characteristics please.
Flawed arguement... dont insult me

So you claim weapons are not wargear ?

What is a Ghost Arks AV?

But its not the Ghost arks wargear or rule is it?

the rule as RAW you know 'rule as written' specifies model. is the lance rule a rule a model has? or it a rule a weapon has?

Its a rule a weapon has, the rule as stated is looking at the MODELS wargear or rules.... show me where the Gark has a rule stating its got a fixed characteristic other than QS.
Then go back and prove there is a rule which states you apply affects from weapon profiles at the same time as determining model characteristics please.

----------------------------------------
Let me make something clear;I am simply stating that the initial argument is flawed. Because RAW the lance affect has nothing to do with the Gark and determining its characteristics, thus there is no conflict.
Modifiers:
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any mulipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values"

There is also no RAW that states you apply the effects of a weapon affect at the same time as a models rules when determining the AV value of a vehicle.

From that I then think it is 'common sense' so RAI, that the lance affect is applied to a vehicle already under the effects of QS. However, if you don't like that and you want to argue that QS and Lance are in fact simultaneous then;

SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

There is no conflict,
There is no explicit wording,
Shooting player decides.

Solar Shock wrote:
But its not the Ghost arks wargear or rule is it?

the rule as RAW you know 'rule as written' specifies model. is the lance rule a rule a model has? or it a rule a weapon has?

The model has a weapon (wargear) that has a special rule on it (Lance).

Its a rule a weapon has, the rule as stated is looking at the MODELS wargear or rules.... show me where the Gark has a rule stating its got a fixed characteristic other than QS.

Ghost Ark AV 11, 11, 11

Then go back and prove there is a rule which states you apply affects from weapon profiles at the same time as determining model characteristics please.

"""Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.""""

The AV of the Ghost Ark is 11.
Quantum Shielding:: A vehicle equipped with active quantum shielding counts all of its Front and Side armor values as 13.
Lance :: Weapons with the Lance special rule count vehicle Armour Values that are higher than 12 as 12.

The only time either of those rules come into play is when you are rolling against the AV of the front and side armor.

Fragile wrote:

Solar Shock wrote:
But its not the Ghost arks wargear or rule is it?

the rule as RAW you know 'rule as written' specifies model. is the lance rule a rule a model has? or it a rule a weapon has?

The model has a weapon (wargear) that has a special rule on it (Lance).

Its a rule a weapon has, the rule as stated is looking at the MODELS wargear or rules.... show me where the Gark has a rule stating its got a fixed characteristic other than QS.

Ghost Ark AV 11, 11, 11

Then go back and prove there is a rule which states you apply affects from weapon profiles at the same time as determining model characteristics please.

"""Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.""""

The AV of the Ghost Ark is 11.
Quantum Shielding:: A vehicle equipped with active quantum shielding counts all of its Front and Side armor values as 13.
Lance :: Weapons with the Lance special rule count vehicle Armour Values that are higher than 12 as 12.

The only time either of those rules come into play is when you are rolling against the AV of the front and side armor.

No, it is not. The quantum shield says the armor is treated as 13, period. Not just when it is shot at, always (until a penetrating hit is scored)
So, when the lance weapon is fired, the armor value was 13, because the quantum shield is already active. It doesn't matter when in game you check what the armor value is, it is a flat 13 due to its special rule. Now the lance special rule says to treat armor above 12 as 12. That only happens when it hits anything above armor 12., which the ghost ark has had since it was deployed on the table. The lance lowers it by one to 12 because that happens at least two phases after the av of the ark had been determined by its wargear. The q.s. doesn't say to treat the armor as 13 for attacks, you treat it as 13 period.

Unlike Rending or Precision Shot, Lance never tells you when it applies. When shooting the model is firing and you are comparing so when does Lance even activate? When does a weapon make any decisions or make any action during the sequence? If QS is all the time isn't lance always working as well since it does not say during shooting or when resolving shots or rolling for AP?

The lance rule is in effect the entire time the weapon is being fired at a vehicle. Quantum shield says treat the armor as 13 until it is penned, while lance treats it as 12, for the purposes of attempting to penetrate. When I chose my target to shoot, hit it, and asked what its front armor was, it was a 13. In order to have the shield not be affected by the bright lance you would have to say it was 11, then when I rolled, change it to 13. Because otherwise, I would have been rolling to penetrate an av above twelve, and my lance rule tells me what happens when that occurs. So, either the armor value was set beforehand, or you are changing the number I am rolling against after I have rolled to see whether I have penetrated your armor. Since that cannot happen, lance will lower the armor to twelve.

Really does it, I assume you can quote that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To make it easier.

BRB Lance wrote:Weapons with the Lance special rule count vehicle Armour Values that are higher than 12
as 12.

For comparison.

BRB Melta wrote:Ranged weapons with this special rule roll an additional D6 when rolling to penetrate a
vehicle’s armour at half range or less.

As you can see Melta and many other rules that apply when rolling for AP state that. Lance does not.

A very good point was made about the lance rule. It doesn't say when it works it is just a constant effect just like QS is. If it said "when rolling for what number to pen/glance if the target's av is higher than 12 count it as 12" or even "When a unit with a model that has this special rule that fires at a vehicle with av higher than 12 treat it as 12 when rolling to glance/pen" then i can see it being lance taking over because in those cases lance is a new effect that is applied but there is no such ruling for lance just a single line that happens all the time.

This didn't happen in the old necron codex because it was an additive value not a set modifier, now it is and both are set modifiers that happen all the time, the Lance SR is always "on" just like QS is always "on" until it is penn'd.


There is no sequencing since they are both going on all the time, the Lance rule is only "useful" when the unit with it is firing but it is still "on" at other times during the turn just like QS is only "useful" when the vehicle is being fired at but is always "on" as well.

Oberron wrote:
A very good point was made about the lance rule. It doesn't say when it works it is just a constant effect just like QS is. If it said "when rolling for what number to pen/glance if the target's av is higher than 12 count it as 12" or even "When a unit with a model that has this special rule that fires at a vehicle with av higher than 12 treat it as 12 when rolling to glance/pen" then i can see it being lance taking over because in those cases lance is a new effect that is applied but there is no such ruling for lance just a single line that happens all the time.

This didn't happen in the old necron codex because it was an additive value not a set modifier, now it is and both are set modifiers that happen all the time, the Lance SR is always "on" just like QS is always "on" until it is penn'd.


There is no sequencing since they are both going on all the time, the Lance rule is only "useful" when the unit with it is firing but it is still "on" at other times during the turn just like QS is only "useful" when the vehicle is being fired at but is always "on" as well.

So if they're both always 'on'... what's our conclusion?

A very good point was made about the lance rule. It doesn't say when it works it is just a constant effect just like QS is. If it said "when rolling for what number to pen/glance if the target's av is higher than 12 count it as 12" or even "When a unit with a model that has this special rule that fires at a vehicle with av higher than 12 treat it as 12 when rolling to glance/pen" then i can see it being lance taking over because in those cases lance is a new effect that is applied but there is no such ruling for lance just a single line that happens all the time.

It is not a very good point it is irrelevant. Regardless of when a modifier is activated if you have multiple modifiers you use the multiple modifiers rules. That gives the sequence used to apply those modifiers.

Now we have 2 set value modifiers in contradiction. So you can argue that it is a sequencing issue resolved by the sequencing rule (players turn chooses which modifier is applied first) or you can argue that count as X & counts as Y are contradictory rules as it is impossible to be both X & Y thus codex trumps BrB comes into play. Those are the only stances supported by actual rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

A very good point was made about the lance rule. It doesn't say when it works it is just a constant effect just like QS is. If it said "when rolling for what number to pen/glance if the target's av is higher than 12 count it as 12" or even "When a unit with a model that has this special rule that fires at a vehicle with av higher than 12 treat it as 12 when rolling to glance/pen" then i can see it being lance taking over because in those cases lance is a new effect that is applied but there is no such ruling for lance just a single line that happens all the time.

It is not a very good point it is irrelevant. Regardless of when a modifier is activated if you have multiple modifiers you use the multiple modifiers rules. That gives the sequence used to apply those modifiers.

Now we have 2 set value modifiers in contradiction. So you can argue that it is a sequencing issue resolved by the sequencing rule (players turn chooses which modifier is applied first) or you can argue that count as X & counts as Y are contradictory rules as it is impossible to be both X & Y thus codex trumps BrB comes into play. Those are the only stances supported by actual rules.

And under multiple modifiers it says to apply any set modifiers last, now we have a timing issue, THAT is the problem I am trying to show. The lance rule is ALWAYS in effect to the model that has it just like QS is always in effect to the vehicle that has it (until it is penned) both rules are applied all the time and are both set modifiers. This creates the contradiction, and the book says that codex beats out base rule book.

it isn't irrelevant the fact they are both always on means they are on from the start of the game. Timing is very important for modifiers, Lets say I have a unit that has a special rule since the start of the game that sets its leadership to 10 then my opponent cast a pyschic power or special ability that changes the target unit's leadership to 8 if higher than 8. What is the unit's leadership? The psychic power added a new modifier as it goes on top of the old one making it 8. Lance does not have this timing it is just always on just like QS is always on (until penned) so both are applied at the same time, which makes a contradiction which as you said the codex beats the BRB.

I think you misunderstood what i was trying to say?

it isn't irrelevant the fact they are both always on means they are on from the start of the game. Timing is very important for modifiers, Lets say I have a unit that has a special rule since the start of the game that sets its leadership to 10 then my opponent cast a pyschic power or special ability that changes the target unit's leadership to 8 if higher than 8. What is the unit's leadership? The psychic power added a new modifier as it goes on top of the old one making it 8.

Incorrect you have 2 set modifiers just like in the lance and QS situation. So according to multiple modifiers they both get applied at the same time (regardless of when they were initially activated). So we need more information before we can determine whether the unit is Ld8 or Ld10. The timing of when the rules activate is irrelevant.

Let's say I have a modifier to my strength that gives me +1 strength at the start of the game taking my Strength from 3 to 4. Later in the game I cast a power that doubles my strength, I am now S7, not 8. Due to multiple modifiers the doubling is done before addition even though it is activated after the +1 S.

So in either case (your LD example or this QS vs Lance) we need to determine how to solve the issue. We have 2 set value modifiers, set value modifiers occur either at the same time or at the same step of a sequence.

If they occur at the same time then the sequencing rule at the bottom of page 17 comes into play and the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which you apply the modifiers.

However there is an argument that the calculation of multiple modifiers is always done simultaneously. The sequence is merely an order of operations such that in the example of S above the model is never S6 even though 3 is doubled before the +1 is added. It is a 1 step calculation that we can not interrupt and thus 2 different set modifiers causes a contradiction in that calculation that we need Basic vs Advanced on page 13 to resolve.

Solar Shock wrote:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

There is no conflict,
There is no explicit wording,
Shooting player decides.

You mean "active player"
It would allow a CCB to have his AV13 when you have Overwatch with Lance-weapons.

Do we have any precedent to go off of?

I can totally see both the codex v brb arguments and the sequence one too. I never use lance weapons, but often are asked to make rulings at my club... With 2 Eldar and 2 Necron players.

Watching this one closely.

 Lobukia wrote:
Do we have any precedent to go off of?

I can totally see both the codex v brb arguments and the sequence one too. I never use lance weapons, but often are asked to make rulings at my club... With 2 Eldar and 2 Necron players.

Watching this one closely.

I would tend towards conflict as I don't see the calculation as a series of timed actions but as one action taken in a sequence. Thus the sequencing rule is not applicable but the Codex vs BrB rule is.

like a Crushing Blow scorpion exarch with a powerfist is never S6 even for a split second even though you double to 6 then add 1, the calculation occurs and then he is S7.

 FlingitNow wrote:

If they occur at the same time then the sequencing rule at the bottom of page 17 comes into play and the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which you apply the modifiers.

However there is an argument that the calculation of multiple modifiers is always done simultaneously. The sequence is merely an order of operations such that in the example of S above the model is never S6 even though 3 is doubled before the +1 is added. It is a 1 step calculation that we can not interrupt and thus 2 different set modifiers causes a contradiction in that calculation that we need Basic vs Advanced on page 13 to resolve.

It is a 1 step calculation, well is it? can you show me where there there is any evidence of that? I'm finding it very hard to believe its a 1 step calculation especially considering the multiple modifiers rule literally states the order in which you apply the modifiers. Yes this is overall a calculation, but its personal opinion that it is 1 step. There is also no evidence saying that they are simultaneous only the assumption from the multiple multipliers rule.

Page 8: "If a model with Strength 4 has both '+1 Strength ' and 'strength 8' its final strength is 8 (ignore +1 strength and set it at 8)." So if you want to state they are simultaneous and applied within the same calculation then;

Gark FacingAV=13,12 - if this was done simultaneously by a computer it would error or it would be both values at the same time. Neither of which is a useful result/situation. There isn't enough information to resolve this.

However, if what you've stated is what people want to agree on, then again there isn't enough information, in that case I will be going RAI, because it is unlikely GW are going to grace us with their presence. I would find it very hard for someone to argue a shielding effect is being applied post a on hit effect. I play Crons and CWE.

It is a 1 step calculation because an Ld10 model with a +2 and a -3 modifier is Ld9. Otherwise the cap at 10 comes ibto pkay and causes all sorts of issues.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a 1 step calculation because an Ld10 model with a +2 and a -3 modifier is Ld9. Otherwise the cap at 10 comes ibto pkay and causes all sorts of issues.

I meant define 1 step.

1+2-2 is one step if you consider the whole calculation as 1 step.
But if you consider each operation as a step in the calculation then this is a 2 step operation.

Your example about LD is a good one, but at the same time you are making an assumption to get there. There isn't any information that defines what is a 1 step calculation. Not disagreeing, but saying you are assuming.

The rules state that Attacks and wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10, but that does not mean that; LD=9+2-3, LD=7 because during the calculation it theoretically went above 10 and thus was limited to 10. Again here you are making an assumption.

And if we are making assumptions then we are playing RAI at which point RAW is almost mute.

The player whos turn it is decides in which order the modifiers are applied, so I imagine the Lance would be rolling against AV12.

You may want to reread that. The active player decides when two things happen at the same time. These are always active. An active player doesn't get to choose which order mods are applied.

Gravmyr wrote:
You may want to reread that. The active player decides when two things happen at the same time. These are always active. An active player doesn't get to choose which order mods are applied.

I find in general that the sequence rule was most likely added in for instances like this, however it really isn't practical to attempt to write it explaining every single situation. There is also no evidence that these 'effects' are always active. Thats an assumption. But we have to make assumptions, because like I said GWare not going t write everything out fully to cover every instance, else the BRB would be 1000000 pages of clauses ad conditions. Thus IMO, as we must make an assumption, the most likely rule to cover this is the sequence rule. But we can sit here and debate that all day and in the end get nowhere, because there isn't the required infomation to solve this.

look heres how it goes: eldar player declares shooting against gark; eldar player hits; eldarplayer asks what the armour value is; necron player replies AV13 due to QS; eldar player looks at weapon rules; gark becomes AV12

if you cant handle this move to another forum or e-mail GW about it.

You need to back up your statements not make grand statements. If you can't do that please at least polite.

It's quite simple. There are two ways to resolve this (without an FAQ).

Sequencing- on Eldar players turn, QS then Lance. On Necron players turn, lance than QS.

Conflict-BRB and codex conflict. Codex wins.

IMO, fluff wise at least, I see lance winning out. However I'm not currently playing my Eldar, so I'm unlikely to actually come across this scenario.

Either way, I think this thread is done.

 Happyjew wrote:
It's quite simple. There are two ways to resolve this (without an FAQ).

Sequencing- on Eldar players turn, QS then Lance. On Necron players turn, lance than QS.

Conflict-BRB and codex conflict. Codex wins.

IMO, fluff wise at least, I see lance winning out. However I'm not currently playing my Eldar, so I'm unlikely to actually come across this scenario.

Either way, I think this thread is done.

Agreed.

 Happyjew wrote:
It's quite simple. There are two ways to resolve this (without an FAQ).

Sequencing- on Eldar players turn, QS then Lance. On Necron players turn, lance than QS.

Conflict-BRB and codex conflict. Codex wins.

IMO, fluff wise at least, I see lance winning out. However I'm not currently playing my Eldar, so I'm unlikely to actually come across this scenario.

Either way, I think this thread is done.

Let's hope so. That circus went on for 9 pages on Warseer.

 FlingitNow wrote:

it isn't irrelevant the fact they are both always on means they are on from the start of the game. Timing is very important for modifiers, Lets say I have a unit that has a special rule since the start of the game that sets its leadership to 10 then my opponent cast a pyschic power or special ability that changes the target unit's leadership to 8 if higher than 8. What is the unit's leadership? The psychic power added a new modifier as it goes on top of the old one making it 8.

Incorrect you have 2 set modifiers just like in the lance and QS situation. So according to multiple modifiers they both get applied at the same time (regardless of when they were initially activated). So we need more information before we can determine whether the unit is Ld8 or Ld10. The timing of when the rules activate is irrelevant.

Let's say I have a modifier to my strength that gives me +1 strength at the start of the game taking my Strength from 3 to 4. Later in the game I cast a power that doubles my strength, I am now S7, not 8. Due to multiple modifiers the doubling is done before addition even though it is activated after the +1 S.

So in either case (your LD example or this QS vs Lance) we need to determine how to solve the issue. We have 2 set value modifiers, set value modifiers occur either at the same time or at the same step of a sequence.

If they occur at the same time then the sequencing rule at the bottom of page 17 comes into play and the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which you apply the modifiers.

However there is an argument that the calculation of multiple modifiers is always done simultaneously. The sequence is merely an order of operations such that in the example of S above the model is never S6 even though 3 is doubled before the +1 is added. It is a 1 step calculation that we can not interrupt and thus 2 different set modifiers causes a contradiction in that calculation that we need Basic vs Advanced on page 13 to resolve.

Ok i see where your coming from for some reason I thought it did the modifier stuff only if the bonuses and set modifers happened at the same time and not if another effect happened afterword, the modifier sequenceing happens all the time regardless of "timing" of new modifiers. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It's quite simple. There are two ways to resolve this (without an FAQ).

Sequencing- on Eldar players turn, QS then Lance. On Necron players turn, lance than QS.

Conflict-BRB and codex conflict. Codex wins.

IMO, fluff wise at least, I see lance winning out. However I'm not currently playing my Eldar, so I'm unlikely to actually come across this scenario.

Either way, I think this thread is done.

Agreed.

And if the lance rule is also printed in my codex, where does that leave us?