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.

Heey folks,

A discussion came up on the Necrontyr reddit and I was wondering if I could get an answer here.

So, it involves Imothekh the Stormlord and his ability, Lord of the Storm.

The ability does the following: Once per battle in your Shooting phase, Imotekh can call the storm: when he does so pick an enemy unit within 48" of Imotekh, other than a CHARACTER, and roll a D6. On a 2+ that unit suffers that many mortal wounds. Then roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 6" of that unit; on a 6 the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.

The question is: Is the main target also affected by the 'AoE' part of the ability?
It says each enemy unit within 6" of that unit.... but is that the 'main' unit itself too?

Doctoralex wrote:
Heey folks,

A discussion came up on the Necrontyr reddit and I was wondering if I could get an answer here.

So, it involves Imothekh the Stormlord and his ability, Lord of the Storm.

The ability does the following: Once per battle in your Shooting phase, Imotekh can call the storm: when he does so pick an enemy unit within 48" of Imotekh, other than a CHARACTER, and roll a D6. On a 2+ that unit suffers that many mortal wounds. Then roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 6" of that unit; on a 6 the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.

The question is: Is the main target also affected by the 'AoE' part of the ability?
It says each enemy unit within 6" of that unit.... but is that the 'main' unit itself too?

If you want to go by the rules (Disclaimer: I have been informed the "majority" of people don't play by the rules for some reason), then yes, the unit is within 6" of itself and will take another D3 mortal wounds on a roll of 6.

To suggest otherwise is to say that a SM Captain is not within range of his own aura, which is provably false. While the ability isn't an aura ability, a unit is always going to be within 6" of itself, no matter how you phrase it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Doctoralex wrote:
Heey folks,

A discussion came up on the Necrontyr reddit and I was wondering if I could get an answer here.

So, it involves Imothekh the Stormlord and his ability, Lord of the Storm.

The ability does the following: Once per battle in your Shooting phase, Imotekh can call the storm: when he does so pick an enemy unit within 48" of Imotekh, other than a CHARACTER, and roll a D6. On a 2+ that unit suffers that many mortal wounds. Then roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 6" of that unit; on a 6 the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.

The question is: Is the main target also affected by the 'AoE' part of the ability?
It says each enemy unit within 6" of that unit.... but is that the 'main' unit itself too?

If you want to go by the rules (Disclaimer: I have been informed the "majority" of people don't play by the rules for some reason), then yes, the unit is within 6" of itself and will take another D3 mortal wounds on a roll of 6.

To suggest otherwise is to say that a SM Captain is not within range of his own aura, which is provably false. While the ability isn't an aura ability, a unit is always going to be within 6" of itself, no matter how you phrase it.

I think you may have misread the ability BCB.

Primary target, which cannot be a CHARACTER, suffers MW equal to d6 used to roll to hit (on 2+). Secondary tagets within 6" then each rolls a d6. On rolls of 6, it suffers d3 MW.

The ability is not worded so that the primary target suffers d6+d3 MW, with max damage of 9 MW on a single target on roll of 6 to hit with LotS, 6 on splash, and 5 or 6 for damage.

Furthermore, the way its worded, the AOE portion doesn't proc if the initial roll to hit with the ability was a 1, although one could argue he can reroll that 1 if he had an aura despite not being an actual attack wih a ranged weapon since it IS performed during shooting phase.

 skchsan wrote:
I think you may have misread the ability BCB.

Primary target, which cannot be a CHARACTER, suffers MW equal to d6 used to roll to hit (on 2+). Secondary tagets within 6" then each rolls a d6. On rolls of 6, it suffers d3 MW.

The ability is not worded so that the primary target suffers d6+d3 MW, with max damage of 9 MW on a single target on roll of 6 to hit with LotS, 6 on splash, and 5 or 6 for damage.

Furthermore, the way its worded, the AOE portion doesn't proc if the initial roll to hit with the ability was a 1, although one could argue he can reroll that 1 if he had an aura despite not being an actual attack wih a ranged weapon since it IS performed during shooting phase.

I have not misread it. The rule says "Then roll a D6 for each enemy unit within 6" of that unit; on a 6 the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds." Surely we can agree that a unit is within 6" of itself? If it didn't want to affect the target unit a second time, it would need to say "Then roll a D6 for each other enemy unit within 6" of that unit; on a 6 the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds."

But as I have been informed and warned, the "majority" of people don't play by the rules if they dislike them, so you're free to just ignore the rules and say it doesn't affect the target unit a 2nd time if you don't want to and can make both sets of mortal wounds happen automatically happen instead of needed to roll for them. My answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

It’s not an aura, so the aura rules don’t apply. The original target doesn’t suffer damage twice.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not an aura, so the aura rules don’t apply. The original target doesn’t suffer damage twice.

it’s not the aura rules, but the measuring distances rules - a model is always within X inches of itself.

 Quanar wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not an aura, so the aura rules don’t apply. The original target doesn’t suffer damage twice.

it’s not the aura rules, but the measuring distances rules - a model is always within X inches of itself.

Pretty obvious what the rule is intended to do, but you do you.

 Quanar wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not an aura, so the aura rules don’t apply. The original target doesn’t suffer damage twice.

it’s not the aura rules, but the measuring distances rules - a model is always within X inches of itself.

Agreed. Regardless of the Aura rules, under regular English syntax/grammar/usage/whatever you want to call it, if I asked you "Are you within 6" of yourself", would the answer not be "Yes"?

Following the instructions of the Tools of War sidebar, we are instructed to measure the range from the target unit to every unit "within 6 [inches]", thus to measure from the closest point of a model in the target unit to the target unit is 0", because the distance between "the models you’re measuring to and from" is 0", because it's the same model. If the rule wanted to exclude the target unit from the secondary set of mortal wounds, it would need to say "each other unit".

Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

But as I have been informed and warned, the "majority" of people don't play by the rules if they dislike them, so you're free to just ignore the rules and say it doesn't affect the target unit a 2nd time if you don't want to and can make both sets of mortal wounds happen automatically happen instead of needed to roll for them. My answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

Y'know, the reason people dislike you is because you say things like this, man. At the end of the day, a game is supposed to be fun, yeah? (I don't know, considering the first part of the definition of a game is "a form of Play") While yes, you could be pedantic and rules-lawyer your way to a few extra victories... is that the point? Judging from how proud you seem to be about all of your various rules debates that you feel so good about being a donkey-cave about... I think you are missing the point. Also, to have a healthier discussion, taking a passive-aggressive tone like that isn't helpful.
As for the actual YMDC, I'd ask the opponent before the game, and if you can't decide, do what the rules say and roll for it.

 AUGmaniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

But as I have been informed and warned, the "majority" of people don't play by the rules if they dislike them, so you're free to just ignore the rules and say it doesn't affect the target unit a 2nd time if you don't want to and can make both sets of mortal wounds happen automatically happen instead of needed to roll for them. My answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

Y'know, the reason people dislike you is because you say things like this, man. At the end of the day, a game is supposed to be fun, yeah? (I don't know, considering the first part of the definition of a game is "a form of Play") While yes, you could be pedantic and rules-lawyer your way to a few extra victories... is that the point? Judging from how proud you seem to be about all of your various rules debates that you feel so good about being a donkey-cave about... I think you are missing the point. Also, to have a healthier discussion, taking a passive-aggressive tone like that isn't helpful.
As for the actual YMDC, I'd ask the opponent before the game, and if you can't decide, do what the rules say and roll for it.

I am not being passive aggressive. I, personally, play by what the rules, as written in the rulebooks, say. I have been informed that this is apparently not the case, and that "no-one" plays the game by the rules, as written in the rulebooks, and that "no-one" comes to this forum with the intent of finding out what the rules, as written in the rulebooks, say. Thus, I have decided to be explicitly clear that when I answer questions on this forum, I do so from the position that I personally follow, that is, the rules, as written in the rulebooks. I apologise if this came off as passive-aggressive or any form of aggressive. I simply wish to preempt any misunderstandings or hurt feelings.

In any case, I shall take my leave of this thread, my answer given, as disclaimed, from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

Going to quote Stux from another thread here...
Suffice it to say that the strict pedantic RAW and what 99% of people actually play in practice do not allign on this one! You have to ask yourself what are you trying to achieve here? Being technically correct for internet points, or actually understanding how the game is played?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Pretty obvious what the rule is intended to do, but you do you.

And I would probably agree that what the rule is intended to is different from what the rule actually does (BCB may disagree with me on that point, as is his right). I don’t work at GW and am not psychic, so the RAI may be beyond my grasp.

People ask questions on this forum to get answers. If they don’t like the RAW, they can email GW, or house-rule it themselves, but two different groups might house-rule a rule in different ways. It’s useful (in my opinion) to know how rules work before you break them.

 Quanar wrote:
And I would probably agree that what the rule is intended to is different from what the rule actually does (BCB may disagree with me on that point, as is his right). I don’t work at GW and am not psychic, so the RAI may be beyond my grasp.

People ask questions on this forum to get answers. If they don’t like the RAW, they can email GW, or house-rule it themselves, but two different groups might house-rule a rule in different ways. It’s useful (in my opinion) to know how rules work before you break them.

Wanna hear something crazy? Like, super-dooper-world ending crazy?

I think this rule was intended to not affect the target unit twice!

-Insert Harry Potter Meme of Screaming-

I honestly do think that they were supposed to put "other" in the rule. The fact of the matter is that they didn't. I am (unfortunately) not the person who wrote the Necron Codex. I have no idea what their intent was, and even if I got a legal affidavit swearing before King and Country from the author of the Codex that the intent was indeed to not affect the target unit twice, it doesn't change what the rule actually says. If GW want the rule to only affect the target unit once, they need to put on their big-boy panties and errata it to add an "other" there, or as is more likely given past behaviour, to Special Snowflake it to work the way they "intended". Nothing is stopping you from house ruling it, but like you said, you need to know how the rules actually work before you can start fiddling with them.

"My sig breaks a lot Disclaimer": My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Wanna hear something crazy? Like, super-dooper-world ending crazy?

I think this rule was intended to not affect the target unit twice!

This is. QUITE. crazy.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Wanna hear something crazy? Like, super-dooper-world ending crazy?

I think this rule was intended to not affect the target unit twice!

This is. QUITE. crazy.

I promise I haven’t hacked his account.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Wanna hear something crazy? Like, super-dooper-world ending crazy?

I think this rule was intended to not affect the target unit twice!

This is. QUITE. crazy.

I promise I haven’t hacked his account.

It's almost like BaconCatBug is a real human who understands Rules as Intended, but opts not to argue them on a Rules as Written forum, instead choosing to explore how the Rules are Written.

Craziness.

It’s almost like it’s not exclusively a RAW forum, and the game doesn’t even function when played 100% by RAW, and he sometimes gets RAW very wrong.

Craziness

Alright guys, I think we are done here.

 Octopoid wrote:
It's almost like BaconCatBug is a real human who understands Rules as Intended, but opts not to argue them on a Rules as Written forum, instead choosing to explore how the Rules are Written.

Craziness.

But yes, I agree the thread is done. Until next time!