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.

They're still just dudes in power armor. If they go first, they'll get to kill something that maybe is worth the same points they are. And then the opponent blows them off the board in response.

Plus, they're a shooty unit in an army whose rules generally promote assault. Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.

True, but some people are talking about adding them to Shattered Legion forces (I need to check the rules to see if that would actually work).

What unit is going to need 20 lascannons shot into it? The unit doesn't have split fire so taking 3 units of 20 means you'll be killing 3 enemy units a turn with roughly 15 cannons of overkill per unit.

"Precision Fire
Sun Killers elevated the use of their chosen weaponry to an art form and were able to direct their fire with exacting precision. No
camouflage, nor cover, could offer their targets protection from their perfectly timed and unerringly accurate shots.

An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

So this is already causing confusion, people think it means the sun killers shooting attacks only get no cover usr if they themselves have not moved. I understand thinking that because of how poorly worded the rules are, but that is not my reading of it. Simply put, a shorter wording if that were the case would not have even required mentioning the target unit at all, it could literally say "if this unit does not move in the preceding movement phase its shooting attacks may use the no cover usr". It's referring to the target not having moved, not the attacking unit, otherwise why mention the target at all?


The point costs seem all kinds of messed up.

How do you take that interpretation?

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.

Rihgu wrote:
How do you take that interpretation?

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.

It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?





If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

Rihgu wrote:
How do you take that interpretation?

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.

It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?





If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".

The quoted rule is pretty poorly written. The that in question is operating as a relative pronoun, which, reading it explicitly as its written, would refer to the noun preceding it, a model with this special rule. If you try to read into their possible intent, this doesn't make sense. But grammatically, that's how it should be read.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
How do you take that interpretation?

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.

It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?





If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".

If we're reading it that way, the enemy unit has never moved in the preceding movement phase, because the preceding movement phase was your own.

Rihgu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
How do you take that interpretation?

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.

It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?





If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".

If we're reading it that way, the enemy unit has never moved in the preceding movement phase, because the preceding movement phase was your own.

It's refference "the preceding movement phase" in lieu of preceding turn as a whole because a unit can have moved in more than just the preceding movement phase (moving again in the prior shooting phase or being forced to move at the end of the prior assault phase), just like if you're intercepting a newly arrived target unit, it couldn't have had moved in preceding movement phase. It's terribly worded, but if your interpretation is correct, I humbly ask why economy of words was not used to simply say "this unit may apply the no cover usr to its shooting attacks but not snap fire attacks" or simply "if it does not move". And again, as a limitation its certainly bizarre if you are correct, because as I've mentioned before, it's not exactly tempting to move infantry mounted heavy weapons with long ranges that can already be deployed in very advantageous positions and snap fire them unless out of bare necessity and if that's literally the only time their shooting doesn't get the no cover usr's it's very bizarre.

Again, I read it as, it's the difference between fast units that can jink actually getting to or not, and it's fair, it always seemed stupid to be able to jink on the spot without moving an inch.

So, it's my movement phase, my land speeder moves 12". I do my shooting and my combat phase.

My enemy takes their turn, they do their movement phase, and in their shooting phase target my Land speeder with their Sun Killers, and I Jink.

Did my land speeder move in the preceding movement phase? The only possible answer to this question is: No. Because I don't have any rules that let me move in my enemy's movement phase!

If your interpretation requires this many mental gymnastics to do anything, it most likely isn't the right interpretation. ESPECIALLY when it completely works out of the box without any gymnastics.

You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.

Its pretty bleeding obvious it's referring to the Sunkillers remaining stationary themselves.

Why is it written so poorly?
I have to guess it was typed it 5 minutes by the company intern just to smash out the datasheet, not someone who understood 30k and the various it already has existing they could have leant on.

The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!

Rihgu wrote:


You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.

Well, they can be wrong, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Its pretty bleeding obvious it's referring to the Sunkillers remaining stationary themselves.

Why is it written so poorly?
I have to guess it was typed it 5 minutes by the company intern just to smash out the datasheet, not someone who understood 30k and the various it already has existing they could have leant on.

The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!

It's already putting the cart before the horse reference the target unit having to already have suffered not just a hit but the result of said hit, exemplified by suffering a wound, glancing or penetrating hit as a result of the shooting attack. That already seems both incredibly specific and tangential if the only thing that matters is that the unit making the shooting attack has not also moved. Again if it works how you'd interpret it, why is the target relevant at all? But more specifically, why is not simply referencing hitting said target unit with a shooting attack, why does it matter if it specifically causes a wound, glancing hit or penetrating hit?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!

TBF, there's no reason it wasn't the regular team. The HH books are hardly perfect.

 Gert wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!

TBF, there's no reason it wasn't the regular team. The HH books are hardly perfect.

There's a lot of head scratching for sure. It gets to be a bit much when wargear is also just a collection of usr's in one thing just like the list of special rules for units. I doesn't feel very unified.


Also @Ringhu no hard feelings, I'm honestly trying to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of RAI, because if your interpretation is correct, can we both at least agree it's not common to want or choose to move dudes with heavy weapons who would then be relegated to snap firing? Like outside of sheer necessity? Also, what's with it not just being about a hit in general, but having to cause a wound or a glance or a pen? Why does it need any of that to function?

I want my interpretation to be the correct one simply because it would mean there's actually some thought put into the poorly worded rule, as opposed to just a really long sentence to say you get no cover except for snap fires.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Rihgu wrote:


You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.

Well, they can be wrong, too.

Again, grammatically, not really.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Rihgu wrote:


You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.

Well, they can be wrong, too.

Again, grammatically, not really.

Why is:

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack"

At all relevant to having or not having the no cover usr for a unit's shooting attacks if it moves or not? Why mention that part at all?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
They're still just dudes in power armor. If they go first, they'll get to kill something that maybe is worth the same points they are. And then the opponent blows them off the board in response.

Plus, they're a shooty unit in an army whose rules generally promote assault. Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.

I mean, maybe some sort of legion who can steal another legion exclusive unit and end up infiltrating them and giving some massive buffs through their primarch could use em.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Rihgu wrote:


You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.

Well, they can be wrong, too.

Again, grammatically, not really.

Why is:

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack"

At all relevant to having or not having the no cover usr for a unit's shooting attacks if it moves or not? Why mention that part at all?

Why does having redundant text make you have to invent new grammatical interpretations and infer meaning instead of just taking the redundant text and taking the rule at value?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
They're still just dudes in power armor. If they go first, they'll get to kill something that maybe is worth the same points they are. And then the opponent blows them off the board in response.

Plus, they're a shooty unit in an army whose rules generally promote assault. Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.

I mean, maybe some sort of legion who can steal another legion exclusive unit and end up infiltrating them and giving some massive buffs through their primarch could use em.

In which case they're still just dudes in power armor that will get to kill one thing that may or may not be worth their points before they get blown off the table.

They're fine but they ain't Iron Havocs. Who's taking these over the objectively better AT unit?

 Gert wrote:
They're fine but they ain't Iron Havocs. Who's taking these over the objectively better AT unit?

Presumably EC players, who don't have access to IW units. Although, my friend who plays AL has mentioned repainting his Iron Havocs, so there must be something there?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Why is:

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack"

At all relevant to having or not having the no cover usr for a unit's shooting attacks if it moves or not? Why mention that part at all?

"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."

The "made by a model with this special rule that has not moved..." is a supplementary relative clause applying to the "Shooting Attack."

-edit- I'm not defending their bad writing. I'm just disagreeing with how you're reading it. It's a terrible sentence, we can all agree on that.

Rihgu wrote:
Presumably EC players, who don't have access to IW units. Although, my friend who plays AL has mentioned repainting his Iron Havocs, so there must be something there?

It could not have been more obvious I was referring to the AL Rite.

 Gert wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
Presumably EC players, who don't have access to IW units. Although, my friend who plays AL has mentioned repainting his Iron Havocs, so there must be something there?

It could not have been more obvious I was referring to the AL Rite.

You could have quoted somebody referring to the AL Rite, which would have made it more obvious that you were replying to that context. As it stands, you very easily could have been replying to the topic of the Sun Killers in general.

But yea, I also covered that in that my AL playing friend sees something in this beyond what Iron Havocs provide for him.

But what? Havocs have the same BS, Hardened Armour, Tank Hunters, and permanent -1 to Cover Saves for 10pts more than Sunkillers. As an AT unit, the Havocs are just better. The free fortification slot isn't worth it because the save gained from hiding behind an Aegis is worse than the armour the Marines have base.
For EC, sure a good ranged AT unit but for Coils of the Hydra? Nah, Havocs are flat a better choice.

I should imagine they chose to phrase it as they did because your opponent makes the cover saves, they felt the need to direct the rule at them and then phrase it from their perspective.

Perhaps because GW has commanded them to use the same "legalese" writing that 40k has moved towards.
But if we thought the 40k team was bad at writing in legalese, the 30k is evidently a lot worse! They've always had a very colloquial phrasing to their rules (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!)

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I should imagine they chose to phrase it as they did because your opponent makes the cover saves, they felt the need to direct the rule at them and then phrase it from their perspective.

Perhaps because GW has commanded them to use the same "legalese" writing that 40k has moved towards.
But if we thought the 40k team was bad at writing in legalese, the 30k is evidently a lot worse! They've always had a very colloquial phrasing to their rules (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!)

The other interpretation of the rule is the unit never again can make any cover saves once wounded/glanced/penned.

Which is also a ridiculous interpretation that's clearly not intended.

I actually think the language is clear that "cannot take cover saves" applies to the hit suffered, and it never says it's a permanent buff.

It's a poorly worded rule. I think this is causing people to deliberately misread it to emphasise how badly written it is.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Which is also a ridiculous interpretation that's clearly not intended.

I actually think the language is clear that "cannot take cover saves" applies to the hit suffered, and it never says it's a permanent buff.

It's a poorly worded rule. I think this is causing people to deliberately misread it to emphasise how badly written it is.

Right but not to beat a dead horse entirely but, it says suffered wound/glance/pen it does not say hit, that's the other problem for anyone who wants a clean no one will hate me interpretation of the rule, there really isn't one.

Example: hits target, wounds target, target goes to make a cover save "wow dude you can't" actually he can because he has not yet suffered a wound/glance/pen from the unit attacking.

I used "hit" because it was shorter, but you're right it says "suffers a wound/glance/pen" - functionally there is no difference for the point I was making.
It never says it's permanent, so the suggestion that it only applies to the given attack is clear.

He has suffered a wound - wounds are taken before saves.
Not to be confused with an "unsaved wound" which is what you're left with after saves.

It's quite confusing that they use "wounds" to refer to two distinctly different steps of the combat resolution step, but that's not actually an issue here.