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.
I think I get the RAW but is it really intended to work like this ?
First, for the thermal jets do you make d6 hit rolls for the thermal jets and also "inflict d6 hits on each model in range." or do you simply inflict d6 hits on each model in range ? It doesn't say to use the ability instead of shooting the pistol as normal.
Second, Does the thermal jet ability hit itself ? the dreadclaw itself IS a friendly unit within range of its thermal jet.
Third, if the dreadclaw is within range of itself for the ability, does this mean it can only use its thermal jets if 2 enemy units are in range and no other friendly units are in range? As the dreadclaw is a friendly unit to itself and thus the ability will effective itself, therefor two enemy units is the only way to achieve more enemies units being affected by the weapon.
So ? am I missing anything does the dreadclaw hit itself, need 2+ enemies and shoot at something, then hit it one of the enemy targets a second time via the its normal shooting ?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/17 06:25:06
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
It’s a FW unit. You post in YMDC often, you know the issues with their speedwriting of the Indexes. You know that the RAW doesn’t marry with intended effects. It’s not a new unit. I’m struggling to see the genuine rules question here and not a transparent attempt at an argument thread. I hope I’m wrong - in which case you have to use a lot of leeway with some FW writing and Gadzilla has the right of it. Otherwise... eh, not interested.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
Is that a Forge world unit?
What book does it come from?
P.S. What is a "Dreadcalw"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/17 07:19:53
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
It’s a FW unit. You post in YMDC often, you know the issues with their speedwriting of the Indexes. You know that the RAW doesn’t marry with intended effects. It’s not a new unit. I’m struggling to see the genuine rules question here and not a transparent attempt at an argument thread. I hope I’m wrong - in which case you have to use a lot of leeway with some FW writing and Gadzilla has the right of it. Otherwise... eh, not interested.
I am asking whether or not I have missed anything in terms of errata or FAQs concerning the RAW and I am asking whether or not these things seem to be its intended use .
I am asking, as usual, because I am considered a rules guru among my playgroup and one of the players just bought one and asked me. So as I do with all of my playgroups rules questions that I do not know off the bat, I scoured the internet for explanation. In this case I found very few explanations and analysis on how this unit is supposed to work and what I have found seems to be conflicting. So as I usually do when this is the case, I ask YMDC for advice and send the FAQ team an email for clarification (with the hope of future FAQ answers). I am sorry you don't like that it may be a controversial topic, but
A: can you follow the rules of this forum and not attack me the OP for asking a legitimate rules questions but rather ,,, you know,,, answer the question
B: can get off your high horse and stop pretending you are the god emperror of knowing what its intended effects are and maybe point to some source which shows precedence on its intended effect (which I know you are quite good at and I have always respected your posts which do this).
I am sorry if it was me, asking for sources or rational behind someones answer, that triggered you... but without those two things, I can't really go back to the player with an explanation and thus defeats the purpose of me posting. To explain to him why the rule should work a certain way, I do need at least some kind of rationale, sources would be even better. Hence, why I am asking people here, you know, on a rules forum, where people gather and discuss rules/soruces/rational/intention and the sort. If the intention was clear (and worked like Gadzilla sugests) then I wouldn't have had a player asking me the question and I wouldn't have gotten conflicting answers from different forums and online sources in my initial research. (p.s. I believe Gadzilla's interpretation is the intention,,, I just have nothing to base it on,,,, again, hence why I asked "why/how" they came to that conclusion. I didn't play 40k between 4th and 8th so I have no idea if it being an old unit means it has precedence based on how it worked in previous editions, if that is the case for why you think it should be obvious,,, then please just tell me that instead of trying to shame me for even asking the question)
I am quite disappointed in this direct attack from you, I didn't expect that, your usually quite professional on these forums.
Is that a Forge world unit?
What book does it come from?
Imperial Armor Chaos Pg 23
"HELLFORGED DREADCLAW DROPPOD"
Its the only thing in the game with "dreadclaw" in the name,,, sorry, I thought that would be obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For what it is worth,
GW facebook says
"Hi Type40- as we play this in the Community team, the Dreadclaw does not shoot itself and automatically inflicts D6 hits on every unit (not model) within (not wholly within) 6" of it like a shooting attack. Shooting attacks are measured from the model or base going outwards so it would not affect itself like an aura ability. Think of it like how a flamer automatically hits but doesn't set itself on fire.
The Thermal Jets can only be fired if there are more enemy units within 6" of The Dreadclaw than there are friendly units within 6". The Dreadclaw itself does not count towards this total. It is a 'Pistol' attack so it can hit units within an inch of it.
If you're still unsure though, it's worth you feeding this back to the rules team at 40kFAQ@gwplc.com so they can have a look into clearing this up on a future FAQ for us all. Thank you!"
Even though GWFB is not usually regarded as a legitimate source for these threads I find that enough of an explanation to give to my player. Shooting /= aura ... fair rational and clear enough intention of use.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2019/10/17 08:24:35
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
It’s a FW unit. You post in YMDC often, you know the issues with their speedwriting of the Indexes. You know that the RAW doesn’t marry with intended effects. It’s not a new unit. I’m struggling to see the genuine rules question here and not a transparent attempt at an argument thread. I hope I’m wrong - in which case you have to use a lot of leeway with some FW writing and Gadzilla has the right of it. Otherwise... eh, not interested.
I am asking whether or not I have missed anything in terms of errata or FAQs concerning the RAW and I am asking whether or not these things seem to be its intended use .
I am asking, as usual, because I am considered a rules guru among my playgroup and one of the players just bought one and asked me. So as I do with all of my playgroups rules questions that I do not know off the bat, I scoured the internet for explanation. In this case I found very few explanations and analysis on how this unit is supposed to work and what I have found seems to be conflicting. So as I usually do when this is the case, I ask YMDC for advice and send the FAQ team an email for clarification (with the hope of future FAQ answers). I am sorry you don't like that it may be a controversial topic, but
A: can you follow the rules of this forum and not attack me the OP for asking a legitimate rules questions but rather ,,, you know,,, answer the question
B: can get off your high horse and stop pretending you are the god emperror of knowing what its intended effects are and maybe point to some source which shows precedence on its intended effect (which I know you are quite good at and I have always respected your posts which do this).
I am sorry if it was me, asking for sources or rational behind someones answer, that triggered you... but without those two things, I can't really go back to the player with an explanation and thus defeats the purpose of me posting. To explain to him why the rule should work a certain way, I do need at least some kind of rationale, sources would be even better. Hence, why I am asking people here, you know, on a rules forum, where people gather and discuss rules/soruces/rational/intention and the sort. If the intention was clear (and worked like Gadzilla sugests) then I wouldn't have had a player asking me the question and I wouldn't have gotten conflicting answers from different forums and online sources in my initial research. (p.s. I believe Gadzilla's interpretation is the intention,,, I just have nothing to base it on,,,, again, hence why I asked "why/how" they came to that conclusion. I didn't play 40k between 4th and 8th so I have no idea if it being an old unit means it has precedence based on how it worked in previous editions, if that is the case for why you think it should be obvious,,, then please just tell me that instead of trying to shame me for even asking the question)
I am quite disappointed in this direct attack from you, I didn't expect that, your usually quite professional on these forums.
You seem pretty triggered yourself to be honest.
The FW Indexes are all full of errors, and this seems to be one of them. I don't see how it'd hit yourself as AFAIK that only applies to Aura effects, not ranged weapons.
The simplest way to resolve it would be the first response to this, in that it's similar in function to a Flamer. No doubt there'll be bleatings and cries of "Citation please!!!!" but it seems the most logical way to resolve it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
It’s a FW unit. You post in YMDC often, you know the issues with their speedwriting of the Indexes. You know that the RAW doesn’t marry with intended effects. It’s not a new unit. I’m struggling to see the genuine rules question here and not a transparent attempt at an argument thread. I hope I’m wrong - in which case you have to use a lot of leeway with some FW writing and Gadzilla has the right of it. Otherwise... eh, not interested.
I am asking whether or not I have missed anything in terms of errata or FAQs concerning the RAW and I am asking whether or not these things seem to be its intended use .
I am asking, as usual, because I am considered a rules guru among my playgroup and one of the players just bought one and asked me. So as I do with all of my playgroups rules questions that I do not know off the bat, I scoured the internet for explanation. In this case I found very few explanations and analysis on how this unit is supposed to work and what I have found seems to be conflicting. So as I usually do when this is the case, I ask YMDC for advice and send the FAQ team an email for clarification (with the hope of future FAQ answers). I am sorry you don't like that it may be a controversial topic, but
A: can you follow the rules of this forum and not attack me the OP for asking a legitimate rules questions but rather ,,, you know,,, answer the question
B: can get off your high horse and stop pretending you are the god emperror of knowing what its intended effects are and maybe point to some source which shows precedence on its intended effect (which I know you are quite good at and I have always respected your posts which do this).
I am sorry if it was me, asking for sources or rational behind someones answer, that triggered you... but without those two things, I can't really go back to the player with an explanation and thus defeats the purpose of me posting. To explain to him why the rule should work a certain way, I do need at least some kind of rationale, sources would be even better. Hence, why I am asking people here, you know, on a rules forum, where people gather and discuss rules/soruces/rational/intention and the sort. If the intention was clear (and worked like Gadzilla sugests) then I wouldn't have had a player asking me the question and I wouldn't have gotten conflicting answers from different forums and online sources in my initial research. (p.s. I believe Gadzilla's interpretation is the intention,,, I just have nothing to base it on,,,, again, hence why I asked "why/how" they came to that conclusion. I didn't play 40k between 4th and 8th so I have no idea if it being an old unit means it has precedence based on how it worked in previous editions, if that is the case for why you think it should be obvious,,, then please just tell me that instead of trying to shame me for even asking the question)
I am quite disappointed in this direct attack from you, I didn't expect that, your usually quite professional on these forums.
You seem pretty triggered yourself to be honest.
The FW Indexes are all full of errors, and this seems to be one of them. I don't see how it'd hit yourself as AFAIK that only applies to Aura effects, not ranged weapons.
The simplest way to resolve it would be the first response to this, in that it's similar in function to a Flamer. No doubt there'll be bleatings and cries of "Citation please!!!!" but it seems the most logical way to resolve it.
Yes, I am triggered that someone would directly attack me for asking a question.
Thank you for your response.
Again I would appreciate it if people followed the rules of this forum and stuck to the topic instead of shaming the OP for asking a legitimate question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/17 08:27:39
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Think of it like a flamer that does d6 hits to every unit in range. It doesn't hit itself or count itself as a target. It has the pistol profile to allow it to be fired in melee.
Can you explain your rational and cite sources please... cuz non of your conclusions is what the RAW seems to say ?
It’s a FW unit. You post in YMDC often, you know the issues with their speedwriting of the Indexes. You know that the RAW doesn’t marry with intended effects. It’s not a new unit. I’m struggling to see the genuine rules question here and not a transparent attempt at an argument thread. I hope I’m wrong - in which case you have to use a lot of leeway with some FW writing and Gadzilla has the right of it. Otherwise... eh, not interested.
I am asking whether or not I have missed anything in terms of errata or FAQs concerning the RAW and I am asking whether or not these things seem to be its intended use .
I am asking, as usual, because I am considered a rules guru among my playgroup and one of the players just bought one and asked me. So as I do with all of my playgroups rules questions that I do not know off the bat, I scoured the internet for explanation. In this case I found very few explanations and analysis on how this unit is supposed to work and what I have found seems to be conflicting. So as I usually do when this is the case, I ask YMDC for advice and send the FAQ team an email for clarification (with the hope of future FAQ answers). I am sorry you don't like that it may be a controversial topic, but
A: can you follow the rules of this forum and not attack me the OP for asking a legitimate rules questions but rather ,,, you know,,, answer the question
B: can get off your high horse and stop pretending you are the god emperror of knowing what its intended effects are and maybe point to some source which shows precedence on its intended effect (which I know you are quite good at and I have always respected your posts which do this).
I am sorry if it was me, asking for sources or rational behind someones answer, that triggered you... but without those two things, I can't really go back to the player with an explanation and thus defeats the purpose of me posting. To explain to him why the rule should work a certain way, I do need at least some kind of rationale, sources would be even better. Hence, why I am asking people here, you know, on a rules forum, where people gather and discuss rules/soruces/rational/intention and the sort. If the intention was clear (and worked like Gadzilla sugests) then I wouldn't have had a player asking me the question and I wouldn't have gotten conflicting answers from different forums and online sources in my initial research. (p.s. I believe Gadzilla's interpretation is the intention,,, I just have nothing to base it on,,,, again, hence why I asked "why/how" they came to that conclusion. I didn't play 40k between 4th and 8th so I have no idea if it being an old unit means it has precedence based on how it worked in previous editions, if that is the case for why you think it should be obvious,,, then please just tell me that instead of trying to shame me for even asking the question)
I am quite disappointed in this direct attack from you, I didn't expect that, your usually quite professional on these forums.
You seem pretty triggered yourself to be honest.
The FW Indexes are all full of errors, and this seems to be one of them. I don't see how it'd hit yourself as AFAIK that only applies to Aura effects, not ranged weapons.
The simplest way to resolve it would be the first response to this, in that it's similar in function to a Flamer. No doubt there'll be bleatings and cries of "Citation please!!!!" but it seems the most logical way to resolve it.
Yes, I am triggered that someone would directly attack me for asking a question.
Thank you for your response.
Again I would appreciate it if people followed the rules of this forum and stuck to the topic instead of shaming the OP for asking a legitimate question.
Removed - BrookM
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/19 19:24:21
