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.

Poorly written rule limbo.

It isn't but if it was then going to the sequencing rule would at least give us something.

Rules even conflict? Lance doesn't stop Gark counting as AV 13, it is still counted as AV13 for the duration of the shooting attack, but the lance is counting the 13 as 12 for the purpose of the Pen roll, while the Gark is still counting itself as 13.

I do believe 'lance' type was made written to be absolute, as some armies will rely on lance to be able to glance or pen anything above 12, then again the change in wording may have been to try and override lance.

 Nem wrote:
I do believe 'lance' type was made written to be absolute, as many armies will rely on lance to be able to glance or pen anything above 12.

Nonsense!

Time those snooty DE players were put in their place.

This'll stop them dominating all those tournaments.

 vipoid wrote:

 Nem wrote:
I do believe 'lance' type was made written to be absolute, as many armies will rely on lance to be able to glance or pen anything above 12.

Nonsense!

Time those snooty DE players were put in their place.

This'll stop them dominating all those tournaments.

Heh. I used to run Nids Zoans for Av over 12, then 7th hit and reliability of casting went down the pan, because rolling loads of dice, not getting denies, rolling to hit and then actually doing anything.... haywire templates are just better.

I changed many to some because maybe my brain is stuck in a time many did need lance, but actually it's not so difficult to get many high STR these days, though I imagine a lot may rely on lance during list building (because you don't expect your lance not to work).

 Nem wrote:
Rules even conflict? Lance doesn't stop Gark counting as AV 13, it is still counted as AV13 for the duration of the shooting attack, but the lance is counting the 13 as 12 for the purpose of the Pen roll, while the Gark is still counting itself as 13.

I do believe 'lance' type was made written to be absolute, as some armies will rely on lance to be able to glance or pen anything above 12, then again the change in wording may have been to try and override lance.

If you're treating the Gark as AV12 for the pen roll you are breaking the QS rule as AV12 is not the same thing as AV13.

There are numerous units and rules that ignore Lance. For instance the Landraider Achilles is AV14 and ignores lance. DE have Haywire and Eldar have Wraithcannons so neither is reliant on Lance to deal with AV13-14 any more.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 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?

I would say even if the lance rule is printed in a codex it is irrelevant since basic vs advance says "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex."

If the lance rule is in a codex and the BRB and both work the same say, it is still a rule that is in the rulebook. Since there is no conflict between a lance rule in a codex and in the BRB if they work the same there is no conflict between the two lance so one can't use the "Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precendence." as a way to say 'I just use the lance rule in my codex and not the same exact rule in the base rule book'

Just my two cents on how it works anyway, unsure if this is RAW.