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.

The Valdor Tank Hunter's Neutron Laser Projector has the following special rule, worded exactly as I have written it here:

Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, pg. 44 wrote:Any Vehicle which suffers wounds from this weapon but is not slain must subtract 1 from its Shooting hit roll until the end of its controlling player's next turn.

Does this weapon mean the weapon on the same tank? Or this (type of) weapon?

I guess my question is:

If a unit suffers wounds from 3 separate Neutron Laser Projectors on 3 separate Valdor Tank Hunters, would that unit be at a -1 or -3?

By my reading, I think its a single -1 if it suffers a wound, not per wound.

 PhillyT wrote:
By my reading, I think its a single -1 if it suffers a wound, not per wound.

Oh I know it's not -1 per wound, I meant per weapon, e.g. 3 separate weapons all inflicting however many wounds each: would that stack?

On page 2 of the core rules it says :

Warhammer 40,000 uses six-sided dice, sometimes abbreviated to D6. Some rules refer to 2D6, 3D6 and so on – in such cases, roll that many D6s and add the results together. If a rule requires you to roll a D3, roll a dice and halve the total. When halving any dice roll, round fractions up before applying modifiers (if any) to the result. All modifiers are cumulative. If a rule requires a dice roll of, for example, 3 or more, this is often abbreviated to 3+.

I would say yes, they are cumulative. But :

Q: Are the +1 Strength boosts from the Blood Chalice and Red
Grail abilities cumulative, for a total of +2 Strength?
A: No. It’s only +1 Strength, even if the unit is within
range of both these abilities.

There is at least one exception to the modifiers are cumulative rule.

Welcome to Games Workshop, where they tell you it is cumulative... then start to say 'except for this one, and this one, and this one... for Reasons' when it comes to Frequently Asked Questions about Abilities.
The Authors really should just come out and say "NO, Modifiers are not cumulative" at this point, it is far better for the system as a whole as it eliminates unintended Rule-interactions and questions like this one.

I can't imagine they ever considered someone would own 3 tanks with Neutron Lasers!!!

Given FW had about 12 minutes to write each rulebook, they probably didn't consider or have time to consider stacking. An oversight that will only affect a very few people, I'd imagine.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I can't imagine they ever considered someone would own 3 tanks with Neutron Lasers!!!

Given FW had about 12 minutes to write each rulebook, they probably didn't consider or have time to consider stacking. An oversight that will only affect a very few people, I'd imagine.

I own 3, lol. They're my tank destruction company for my superheavy tank regiment.

So would you say, as written, it does stack? Because that's hilarious against pretty much anything.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I can't imagine they ever considered someone would own 3 tanks with Neutron Lasers!!!

Given FW had about 12 minutes to write each rulebook, they probably didn't consider or have time to consider stacking. An oversight that will only affect a very few people, I'd imagine.

I own 3, lol. They're my tank destruction company for my superheavy tank regiment.

So would you say, as written, it does stack? Because that's hilarious against pretty much anything.

It would be obscene!!! The Guard Valdor has a similarly worded rule. I can see both takes:

- "From this weapon" might be taken by some to mean 'from this category of weapon, i.e. all Neutron Wossnames', therefore not cumulative
- "From this weapon" might be taken by others to mean 'from this exact Neutron Wossnames', therefore cumulative from multiple Valdors

I think whilst they may have intended the first we've no way of knowing, and the second is better supported by the rules wording. Makes sense, if multiple systems-frying guns hit your vehicle's electrical systems they'll be VERY fried!


Edit: the only thing in the various publications I can find about identical rules not stacking is under Auras in the Rulebook FAQ, and this is not an Aura.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I can't imagine they ever considered someone would own 3 tanks with Neutron Lasers!!!

Given FW had about 12 minutes to write each rulebook, they probably didn't consider or have time to consider stacking. An oversight that will only affect a very few people, I'd imagine.

I own 3, lol. They're my tank destruction company for my superheavy tank regiment.

So would you say, as written, it does stack? Because that's hilarious against pretty much anything.

It would be obscene!!! The Guard Valdor has a similarly worded rule. I can see both takes:

- "From this weapon" might be taken by some to mean 'from this category of weapon, i.e. all Neutron Wossnames', therefore not cumulative
- "From this weapon" might be taken by others to mean 'from this exact Neutron Wossnames', therefore cumulative from multiple Valdors

I think whilst they may have intended the first we've no way of knowing, and the second is better supported by the rules wording. Makes sense, if multiple systems-frying guns hit your vehicle's electrical systems they'll be VERY fried!

LOL I am talking about the IG Valdor :3

And yes, me too, on the interpretations. That's why I'm like... "how do?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I can't imagine they ever considered someone would own 3 tanks with Neutron Lasers!!!

Given FW had about 12 minutes to write each rulebook, they probably didn't consider or have time to consider stacking. An oversight that will only affect a very few people, I'd imagine.

I own 3, lol. They're my tank destruction company for my superheavy tank regiment.

So would you say, as written, it does stack? Because that's hilarious against pretty much anything.

It would be obscene!!! The Guard Valdor has a similarly worded rule. I can see both takes:

- "From this weapon" might be taken by some to mean 'from this category of weapon, i.e. all Neutron Wossnames', therefore not cumulative
- "From this weapon" might be taken by others to mean 'from this exact Neutron Wossnames', therefore cumulative from multiple Valdors

I think whilst they may have intended the first we've no way of knowing, and the second is better supported by the rules wording. Makes sense, if multiple systems-frying guns hit your vehicle's electrical systems they'll be VERY fried!

LOL I am talking about the IG Valdor :3

And yes, me too, on the interpretations. That's why I'm like... "how do?"

I think I read Sicaran on one window and yours on another, stoopid me, apologies!

I'd go with the second until proven otherwise, as nothing prevents it being true. The first relies on knowing designer's intent, which we dont'. The second follows RAW.

In short, no-one knows because GW have the rules writing ability of a malamute. It needs an official clarification. Until then, figure it out pre-game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, no-one knows because GW have the rules writing ability of a malamute. It needs an official clarification. Until then, figure it out pre-game.

Being fair to GW proper, this was a FW oversight.

Being fair to FW, GW gave them about 12 minutes notice to write their rules... :-/

Until an FAQ lands (if) people still have to play it. What's your RAW hot take?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What's your RAW hot take?

You had it right with both interpretations of the sentence being true, which means RaW is a hot mess and contradictory. Yay for English!

We have precedent where they have clearly made it from any of that type (by using the word any) but since the way they wrote it is ambiguous and their track record is not too great, we simply don't know.

Someone didn't want to re-type "A Neutron Laser Projector" rather than "this weapon"

Generally in the game, abilities only stack when a named ability says that it stacks; most of the time a named ability only stacks with similar abilities that are not the same ability, and most are more thoughtfully worded anyway.

"This weapon" is the problem, Overheal.

Does it mean "this weapon" as in "this weapon" or did they mean "this weapon" as in "this [category or type of] weapon"? Because english has readings for both.

Heck, I can imagine body language has a lot to do with it. If I was pointing at the gun and said "you suffered a wound from this weapon" and then pointed at the next gun and said "and this weapon" and then said "And this weapon" I am being equally correct as simply pointing to the Neutron Laser entry on a page, which is like the 'singular' interpretation where they just meant any neutron laser.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, no-one knows because GW have the rules writing ability of a malamute. It needs an official clarification. Until then, figure it out pre-game.

Being fair to GW proper, this was a FW oversight.

Being fair to FW, GW gave them about 12 minutes notice to write their rules... :-/

Until an FAQ lands (if) people still have to play it. What's your RAW hot take?

Have a look at Index Xenos 2 gargoyle brood: melee weapon "blinding venom" same unsaved wounds from this weapon verbiage, causes -1 to hit... On a min sized unit of 10 models, max 30, each attacking with a "this weapon" at 4+ to hit s3 no ap. Mathhammering against geq: that is -5 to hit, or in other words you cannot hit.

By the same rights there are many many "this weapon" abilities that absolutely have to be "this weapon that is firing and meets the requirements in its abilities" like Meltas.

 Overheal wrote:
Someone didn't want to re-type "A Neutron Laser Projector" rather than "this weapon"

Generally in the game, abilities only stack when a named ability says that it stacks; most of the time a named ability only stacks with similar abilities that are not the same ability, and most are more thoughtfully worded anyway.

It's actually the reverse... things stack unless we're told otherwise.