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.

Interesting thing i read. there is a way to single out a power fist or a heavy weapon. and get this, its in the rule book!

under the remove casualties rule (pg 26. it says that if you cause enough wounds on one unit in the shooting phase (enough is equal or more than the number of models by the way) you can force your opponent to make an armour sae on a chosen model.  no one that ive talked to knows about this so i might be shot for letting this out in the open. i hope it was worth it.

Posted By KrAyGgEr on 04/16/2007 2:47 PM

Interesting thing i read. there is a way to single out a power fist or a heavy weapon. and get this, its in the rule book!

under the remove casualties rule (pg 26. it says that if you cause enough wounds on one unit in the shooting phase (enough is equal or more than the number of models by the way) you can force your opponent to make an armour sae on a chosen model.  no one that ive talked to knows about this so i might be shot for letting this out in the open. i hope it was worth it.

Welcome to the esoteric world where "torrent of fire" and "torrent of blows" is a secret handshake.

You realize we now have to kill you for spilling the beans in public.

Brothers! Get the sackcloth!

understood my brother. but consider how many people will actually make any knid of use out of this? i doubt most gamers are willing to trade in their power fist for a heavy bolter

Posted By KrAyGgEr on 04/16/2007 2:47 PM

Interesting thing i read. there is a way to single out a power fist or a heavy weapon. and get this, its in the rule book!

under the remove casualties rule (pg 26. it says that if you cause enough wounds on one unit in the shooting phase (enough is equal or more than the number of models by the way) you can force your opponent to make an armour sae on a chosen model.  no one that ive talked to knows about this so i might be shot for letting this out in the open. i hope it was worth it.

The defender still gets to pick the type of weapon the model saves against, and it still has to be enough wounds so each single model takes one.

true, i left that out for posture and drama

Posted By KrAyGgEr on 04/16/2007 4:09 PM
understood my brother. but consider how many people will actually make any knid of use out of this? i doubt most gamers are willing to trade in their power fist for a heavy bolter

People use this rule all the time.  It's very nice against little 5 or 6 man Lascannon squads, especially once one or two of them have died, because it gets easier and easier to force a save on the Lascannon dude.  It's pretty cool that it's not ALWAYS the Lascannon guy who dies last in 4th.

In addition, a number of units have the potential to cause so many wounds that you can reliably get Torrent of Fire.  A squadron of three Tornado speeders puts out 21 shots in a single round.  A squadron of 3 War Walkers with dual Scatter puts out 24.  Dire Avengers and even Marine squads rapidfiring their bolters even get in on the action, especially when firing at a smaller squad.

"no one that ive talked to knows about this so i might be shot for letting this out in the open"

Um, how can they NOT know about it? It's right there, in the rulebook, easily found, for all to read. It's not like it's hidden or anything.

Posted By YankeeBoy on 04/16/2007 4:57 PM
"no one that ive talked to knows about this so i might be shot for letting this out in the open"

Um, how can they NOT know about it? It's right there, in the rulebook, easily found, for all to read. It's not like it's hidden or anything.

It basically is hidden, it doesnt have the heading "torrent of fire rule" anywhere, you have to be very persistent in reading to note it. It doesnt even have a name. Torrent of fire/blows is simply a publicly used convention for the little known rule.

In fact, since moving to minneapolis, I seem to be the only one who knew about it before whipping out my warwalkers and decimating all of the opponents special weapons in a single volley. 3 mins later, everyone was "ooohing and ahhhing" over such a simple oversight. But an understandable oversight, as it isnt easy to find, unless you are diligent. (or read 40K BBS's incessantly... )

Most of the time people are playing marines and shooting one lascannon. Marines can rarely do enough wounds (in a volley) to really be bothered with this rule.

But the "Torrent of Fire" rules are the Eldars bread and butter.

There are good alternatives too.

Vindicare Assassins and Mind War both target specific models. They appear expensive, but if you kill, for axample, the lascannon in a six marine squad you have robbed a 105pt unit or its primary function - excluding the plasma gun here.

Querstion here. What if you fire two assault cannon along with three storm bolters and cause enough wounding hits to cover a squad (not unlikely in the least)... but some of the wounds are rending?

Then you designate one model in the opposing squad to make an individual armor save.

You pick one model to be forced to make a save.

The defender picks which attack/wound to save from.

If the defender picks the rending attack (assuming a '6'), then that unit dies, or rolls an Invuln save.

But normally, they will pick the attack with the easiest save to make.

Except for the fact that it's not "Hidden" at all. To say "hidden" implies intentional obfuscation. It's a part of the rulebook just like every other rule we play by. It's clearly NOT hidden. It's not even difficult to find (as one might say is the case with finding up to date faqs, since they require internet connection and downloading). All one has to do is OPEN the book and read. Not challening in the least. Now, some players may be lazy and/or poor readers, but that doesn't mean the rule is some sort of "surprise" or even a revelation of any sort.

These kind of posts always crack me up. It's a little weird to claim you "found" something that has been left for every player to see in the standard printed rulebook. ex: "Look what I found, models have to retain 2" coherency! Did you know this?!" Again, all of this is in a readily available, currently in print book that everyone playing the game is supposed to own, and to have read in order to play said game. What's the big deal?

Mindworm can kill powerfists too, granted, with a high leadership model its not likely to happen, but the possibility is there.

The hidden powerfist has nothing to do with it being 'hidden' in the rules. It references the fact that you can't specifically target a squad leader with one. I think you totally missed what people are talking about here.

Re: Torrent of Fire - of course it's in the rulebook, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded once in awhile. It comes up rarely enough that you can forget about it.

Asmodai, I did not "miss the point" as you describe. My comments re: the fact that the rule is not hidden were in response to Hellfury's posts (#2 and #8 on the first page of this thread) wherein he stated that the rule ws "hidden" do to its lack of a subject heading within the main rule, coupled with "some" players general ignorance of it. My position is that it is inacurate to describe it as such when it the rule is easily found, read, and understood by anyone who cares to pick up the main rulebook.

But if you notice how many people overlook it, you can easily see where he's coming from. "Hidden" is just a touch of hyperbole, and spares the feelings of the poor folks who don't notice it. Whereas stridently declaiming that it's easy to find, and not hidden at all, seems almost designed to insult the people who aren't or weren't aware of it.

I remember after reading the 4th ed and coming back into the game I missed it several times. Still, I think that refresher rules are always nice for people to work with. And it is a nice way to getting rid of power fists on vet sergeants.

The reason its called a hidden fist is because UNLIKE IC's who have to be in base to base with models in order to use their close combat abilities, a veteran sergeant has to be within 2" of a model that is in base to base to use his powerfist, essentially allowing the veteran sergeant to wreack havok under the shield of his comrades, unlike ICs.

I hope thats the right explanation for the "hidden fist" nomenclature

We're all well aware of why people refer to this as the "hidden fist". That is separate from the commentary regarding the "hidden" quality of the "torrent of fire/blows" rule (as it is commonly called). As for this:

"Whereas stridently declaiming that it's easy to find, and not hidden at all, seems almost designed to insult the people who aren't or weren't aware of it"

But the point is that it IS NOT hidden. It is easy to find. Simply read the main rulebook and you will find it. You know, there are only 86 pages of actual rules before the hardback rulebook reaches the fluff sections. Of those, ten deal with organizing a battle and don't concern in game mechanics. As for using the "torrent of fire" rule, one actually needs to read even less: it's right under the large print heading "REMOVE CASUALTIES" on p26. Upon reviewing casualty removal, one can not miss it.

Mannahnin, the fact that players may overlook this does not constitute proof that the rule is, in fact, hidden. All it "proves" is that there is a segment of the 40k gaming population that has not adequately read the rulebook in question. There are plenty of reasons why this may be the case, but it's disigenous to claim that the actual rule is difficult to find. It's no more "hidden" than any other rule printed within.

Declaring an obvious point, ie, that the rule is indeed easy to find for any player with access to the rulebook, does not constitute "insulting" others. Reading the rulebook should be a basic consideration and/or expectation for anyone playing and discussing the game in question.

Wow, you are kind of an ass.

Jees, it might just be me but you seem genuinely pissed YankeeBoy. Calm down, and there are lots of rules that are easily missed in this game, not everyone has a strict command of the rules, I know I certaintly don't. Just because you have carefully perused the rules does not mean that others have, especially players who enjoy this game on a more casual level.

Also, when Mannahin says that hidden is simply hyperbole, he is actually agreeing that the rule is in fact NOT hidden, and is simply added for dramatic effect to emphasize the point, some people have overlooked the torrent of fire rule.

@ ATI: It's not just you.

@ YankeeBoy: This is a rule that a lot of people seem to miss as its one sentence in 86 pages of rules. And especially as it is new to this edition but not highlighted in any way. I recently brought it up in a game (where the person was shooting at me no less) and my opponent didn't even know about it. Was he an idiot cause it's "right there in the rules?" Not at all, he just missed the rule.

And as Mannahin and ATI have said, "hidden" was an overstatement and hyperbole, sorry if you can't understand that.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By YankeeBoy on 04/17/2007 11:07 AM
Except for the fact that it's not "Hidden" at all. To say "hidden" implies intentional obfuscation. It's a part of the rulebook just like every other rule we play by. It's clearly NOT hidden. It's not even difficult to find (as one might say is the case with finding up to date faqs, since they require internet connection and downloading). All one has to do is OPEN the book and read. Not challening in the least. Now, some players may be lazy and/or poor readers, but that doesn't mean the rule is some sort of "surprise" or even a revelation of any sort.

These kind of posts always crack me up. It's a little weird to claim you "found" something that has been left for every player to see in the standard printed rulebook. ex: "Look what I found, models have to retain 2" coherency! Did you know this?!" Again, all of this is in a readily available, currently in print book that everyone playing the game is supposed to own, and to have read in order to play said game. What's the big deal?

ROFL!

Wow, someone is reading more into something than was said. Posts like yours crack me up as well.

No, I did not infer intentional obfuscation. I meant hidden as in "not easily seen" or "easily overlooked". Or basically what I wrote, that you took out of context.

@ coredump: "Wow, you are kind of an ass.". I'm an ass for claiming that we should all read the rulebook? Or am I an ass for claiming that it was inaccurate to describe the rule as "hidden"? Or am I an ass simply because you don't like my line of reasoning on the subject?

@ ATI: "Jees, it might just be me but you seem genuinely pissed YankeeBoy. Calm down". Actually, I'm very calm. I'm really not pissed at all. I just pointed out why I disagreed with the post; ie that the language chosen to describe the situation was inaccurate. My secondary posts have been in response to misrepresentation of what I originally wrote and/or clarification that my subject was unrelated to the "hidden powerfist" itself.

"Just because you have carefully perused the rules does not mean that others have, especially players who enjoy this game on a more casual level. "
-Again, it's not so hard to find and/or read, casual or otherwise. It's RIGHT there under Casualty Removal.

@Ozymandias: "And especially as it is new to this edition but not highlighted in any way."
- 4th edition has been around for a substantial period of time now. It's not as if we are having this conversation a month after it's release. Second, I'll again point out that this is clearly right under the heading of casualty removal, as part of that process. It doesn't require additional "highlighting", per se, since it's already listed.

Second, with regard to "Was he an idiot cause it's "right there in the rules?"" I never claimed that people were "idiots" if they missed the rule. I merely claimed that the rule was not "hidden", rather in the open for anyone that cares to read it. I subsequently claimed that the overlooking of this rule by some players is not indication of a "hidden quality", rather it only confirms that some people haven't read the rules carefully. That's not disparaging or condemning, it's simply an accurate observation.

Third, with regard to "and as Mannahin and ATI have said, "hidden" was an overstatement and hyperbole, sorry if you can't understand that."
- I completely understand that. If you re-read my posts, it's fairly clear that the entire point of my writing was that I objected to his mis-use of that specific language, that "hidden" was not correct. If I didn't understand that, I wouldn't have made the initial point in response to the usage.

@ Hellfury: "Wow, someone is reading more into something than was said"
-Um, I didn't read MORE into what you said. Here is the exact exchange:

MEin response to the poster initially describing the rule as "hidden") "Um, how can they NOT know about it? It's right there, in the rulebook, easily found, for all to read. It's not like it's hidden or anything"

Hellfury: "It basically is hidden, it doesnt have the heading "torrent of fire rule" anywhere, you have to be very persistent in reading to note it. It doesnt even have a name. Torrent of fire/blows is simply a publicly used convention for the little known rule."'

My subsequent response: "Except for the fact that it's not "Hidden" at all. To say "hidden" implies intentional obfuscation. It's a part of the rulebook just like every other rule we play by. It's clearly NOT hidden. It's not even difficult to find (as one might say is the case with finding up to date faqs, since they require internet connection and downloading). All one has to do is OPEN the book and read. Not challening in the least. Now, some players may be lazy and/or poor readers, but that doesn't mean the rule is some sort of "surprise" or even a revelation of any sort."

Finally, you can't "infer" intentional obfuscation. I believe you mean "imply". As for your usage of "not easily seen" or "easily overlooked", again you are incorrect.
Hidden, as an adjective, means "kept out of sight; concealed". Quoted from Webster, it means "concealed, secret". From its root form as a verb, (Hide), it means "? (of a thing) prevent (someone or something) from being seen ? keep secret or unknown- to conceal oneself

I didn't take anything you wrote out of context. You claimed that the rule was hidden. The word itself has a specific meaning, which is what I objected to. You now claim "hidden" as in "not easily seen" or "easily overlooked", but again, that's simply incorrect. Hidden does not mean those things. The use of hidden has a clear implication that there exists intent to conceal, which clearly can NOT be true when an organization prints large quantities of the document for every player to READ.

ONe more note: I'm surprised at the reaction to my posts here. My point has been, essentially, that we should be accurate and thorough in our discussions. You Make the Call is legendary for it's thoroughness in approach to language. One would expect that ALL of Dakka Dakka would have a similar appreciation for what words actually mean. Semantics matter.

Theyre right, you are an ass.

Excuse me, what I meant to say that you seem to feel the need to make several posts regarding  semantics over a word such as "hidden" that it makes you appear as having a pugnacious, pedantic attitude.

So, Hellfury, just to be clear.

1. original poster writes suggesting that the "hidden powerfist"/toreent of fir is new/novel, etc. (post #1)
2. I subesquently post stating that this isn't new, rather that it's right ther ein the rulebook, open for anyone that cares to read it. (post #7)
3. You then state that. no, it is a "hidden" rule (post #8)
3. I explain how it is, in fact, not hidden at all. (page 2, post #2)
4. My next post clarifies that I'm not confusing the "hidden powerfist" scenario with your use of "hidden" on the first page. (page 2, post #5)
5. My next post reinterates that the subject is not confusion re: the two versions of hidden used within the thread. (in response to ATI's explantion of "hidden" fists). Then goes on to defend against accusations that I have "insulted" or attempted to "insult" by posting. I also explain that anecdotal stories re:said rule do not equal proof that the rule is "hidden" (from Mannahnin) (page 2, post #8)
6. Posts from Coredump, ATI, etc. angry/annoyed over my explanation.
7. Post form you, Hellfury, in which you claim that I "read something more into what you said" and then you state what you meant/what you believe hidden means. (page 2, post #12)
8. Post from me, wherein I explain how I haven't read anything into your posts, rather, I explain why "hidden" is inaccurate, that it does not mean what you state it means.

How is disagreement, clarification, and correction immediately euqate to pugnacious to you? How does suggest that one actually wants to fight when one is engaged in a discussion? Despite the tone of your comments, I haven't ONCE been impolite to you, nor anyone else. That's certainly NOT pugnacious. As for pedantic, how is this an insult?

Pedantic: scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous

It's always been my intention to be as accurate, precise, informed, correct, and literate as possible. In other words, I hold high standards. Certainly these are qualities that we should all hold in high regard and strive for?

Crap people love too here them selves type and talk on subjects that are beaten down with stick over a hundred times , we all got it its in the rule book would you like too give use the page number and paragaph and sentence its on too.... enough said

Someone smite StarGate with a dictionary and Elements of Style.

Please.

Good luck every getting a job that's not flipping burgers with writing like that.