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 came across a potential issue with a power in the Blood Angel's Sanguinary Discipline.

The Blood Lance wrote:
fluff removed
The Blood Lance has a warp charge value of 6. If manifested, select a visible enemy model within 12" and draw a line between them and the psyker. Roll a D6 for each model the centre of the line passes over. For each roll of 5+ that model's unit suffers a mortal wound.

The first time I read this, I quickly assumed it was, "Roll a D6 for each unit that has a model under the line, and on a 5+ that unit suffers a mortal wound." Cool enough, not crazy, but decent. Now, however, I can see how that assumption on my part might not be correct.

Roll a D6 for each model the centre of the line passes over.

Let's assume the target is an Astropath 11" away, with three perfectly lined-up infantry squads two-ranks deep in between the Astropath and the Blood Angels Librarian. The line passes over two models per unit, thus you'd roll seven dice total. I think everyone's on the same page there. The question becomes, "How/when are these seven dice rolled?"

For each roll of 5+ that model's unit suffers a mortal wound.

If these dice are rolled as a pool, and hit three 5+, each unit suffers 3 mortal wounds. If they're rolled individually, each unit would have two dice rolled against it, suffering a maximum of two mortal wounds each. Yet the way it's worded doesn't seem to really specify either way. At least not entirely concisely.

I think the intent is clear - it should work similar to the old beam powers, and in the scenario I provided, you'd identify each unit that the beam passes over, and roll 2D6 on each unit and deal with any casualties then. This feels correct given that it's a mere 6 on 2D6 to manifest, but re-reading the rule gave me pause, so I bring it to the Dakka-Dakka community.

Thoughts? Are there other powers similar that have already been FAQ'd that I'm forgetting?

PLEASE. KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVIL.

They are rolled per model (so you can speed dice to per unit if you wish). It specifically says that you roll a D6 for each model it crosses over, and if you roll a 5+ THAT MODEL'S unit takes a mortal wound. It does not say "roll a d6 for each model this passes over. For each 5+ apply a mortal wound to each enemy unit the line passes over".

I'm not seeing the ambiguity, if you see it please enlighten me.

 troa wrote:
They are rolled per model (so you can speed dice to per unit if you wish). It specifically says that you roll a D6 for each model it crosses over, and if you roll a 5+ THAT MODEL'S unit takes a mortal wound. It does not say "roll a d6 for each model this passes over. For each 5+ apply a mortal wound to each enemy unit the line passes over".

I'm not seeing the ambiguity, if you see it please enlighten me.

Maybe 10th time's the charm, or something. Like I mentioned, I do believe the intent is clear - though for whatever reason I tripped on the full-stop. It can't really be anything other than a mere 2D6 per unit - yet maybe I'm just a little too "open minded" at the moment and over-complicated it. Thanks for the reply.

It's bad RAW because of the two "For Eachs." The second "for each" should have been "On a".

Anyway, I would play it as: A unit suffers (total number of 5+s rolled) multiplied by (number of models underneath the template). If your opponents complain, tough luck. Tell them to write to GW that they failed iterative logic 101. Alternately, make it quid-quo-pro, trading one bad rule interpretation for another ("Ok, as long as Plasma explodes on Natural 1s." ). You want to make 40k as written unplayable so GW will fix their own mess.

It's the 6e Pyrovore all over again!

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It's bad RAW because of the two "For Eachs." The second "for each" should have been "On a".

Anyway, I would play it as: A unit suffers (total number of 5+s rolled) multiplied by (number of models underneath the template). If your opponents complain, tough luck. Tell them to write to GW that they failed iterative logic 101. Alternately, make it quid-quo-pro, trading one bad rule interpretation for another ("Ok, as long as Plasma explodes on Natural 1s." ). You want to make 40k as written unplayable so GW will fix their own mess.

It's the 6e Pyrovore all over again!

Your suggestion for changing the wording would make no difference at all. "On a roll of..." and "For each roll of..." amount to the exact same thing. How you can equate it to that ridiculous Volatile rule (where as written it hit everything on the table except Pyrovores!) is beyond me.

You must have edited your reply just as I hit quote, I didn't see it at first. What you've added makes no sense in the slightest and doesn't seem remotely applicable to the Psychic power as written.

The wording works just fine.

Unit 1
How many models under the line? 3
Roll 3D6. One, five and six. Two Mortal Wounds to that unit. Owner chooses casualties. Can be any from unit not justvthose under line.

Unit 2
How many models under line? 2
Roll 2D6. Three, four. No effect.

Unit 3
How many models under line? 1
Roll a D6. Five. One Mortal Wound on that unit. Owner chooses.

And so on.

 Imateria wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It's bad RAW because of the two "For Eachs." The second "for each" should have been "On a".

Anyway, I would play it as: A unit suffers (total number of 5+s rolled) multiplied by (number of models underneath the template). If your opponents complain, tough luck. Tell them to write to GW that they failed iterative logic 101. Alternately, make it quid-quo-pro, trading one bad rule interpretation for another ("Ok, as long as Plasma explodes on Natural 1s." ). You want to make 40k as written unplayable so GW will fix their own mess.

It's the 6e Pyrovore all over again!

Your suggestion for changing the wording would make no difference at all. "On a roll of..." and "For each roll of..." amount to the exact same thing. How you can equate it to that ridiculous Volatile rule (where as written it hit everything on the table except Pyrovores!) is beyond me.

You must have edited your reply just as I hit quote, I didn't see it at first. What you've added makes no sense in the slightest and doesn't seem remotely applicable to the Psychic power as written.

The difference is you only have one FOR-EACH statement, so you can only potentially inflict a max of N instead of N*N Mortal Wounds.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The wording works just fine.
[snip]
And so on.

Like I indicated in my second post, it was the separation of the two instructions that gave me pause. I brought this up not because of how I interpret the rule, but to open the discussion as to whether there even is another interpretation. Most definitely a foolish excercise!

 Imateria wrote:
that ridiculous Volatile rule (where as written it hit everything on the table except Pyrovores!) is beyond me..

Just an odd question, from someone that hasn't played much in recent years and accepting this deviates from the topic a little, what about the Volatile rule is ridiculous? It seems fairly clear that you roll a d6, say a 5, and only units within that many inches of the dead model take a hit?

bouncingboredom wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
that ridiculous Volatile rule (where as written it hit everything on the table except Pyrovores!) is beyond me..

Just an odd question, from someone that hasn't played much in recent years and accepting this deviates from the topic a little, what about the Volatile rule is ridiculous? It seems fairly clear that you roll a d6, say a 5, and only units within that many inches of the dead model take a hit?

A previous edition had wording that wasn't a problem for 99% of players, but some folk decided, due to a GW sentence structure quirk, that it hit every unit on the table if it exploded. Oh they must be so much fun at games night.

bouncingboredom wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
that ridiculous Volatile rule (where as written it hit everything on the table except Pyrovores!) is beyond me..

Just an odd question, from someone that hasn't played much in recent years and accepting this deviates from the topic a little, what about the Volatile rule is ridiculous? It seems fairly clear that you roll a d6, say a 5, and only units within that many inches of the dead model take a hit?

Rather than "Roll a D6 to determine the explosion radius. Each model in that radius immediately suffers a S3 hit," the Volatile RAW is that "Every unit suffers a S3 hit for each model within D6" of a Pyrovore." Key word every, as in all models on the table (arguably in the multiverse."

Which brings up an interesting philosophical dilemma. There must be a hypothetical universe of infinite exploding Pyrovores, so no unit may ever be less than T7 or else it dies. Casting Misfortune would in theory equate to an autokill since Rending autowounds on 6s, and so the unit becomes suspect to death by the multiverse of Infinite Exploding Pyrovores. However, any Pyrovore itself would die from the realm of Infinite Exploding Pyrovores, preventing itself from Exploding.

Does an infinite amount of Pyrovores dying non-explosive deaths to an infinite amount of Volatile Pyrovores cancel itself out?

 JohnnyHell wrote:


A previous edition had wording that wasn't a problem for 99% of players, but some folk decided, due to a GW sentence structure quirk, that it hit every unit on the table if it exploded. Oh they must be so much fun at games night.

Wow, not sure how even with the clumsy sentence structure people came to that conclusion. Like you say, must have been to play against.

The Blood Lance rule seems fairly self explanatory. Draw your line, go to the first model along the line and roll a d6. On a 5+ that models unit takes a mortal wound. Progress to the next model under the line and repeat until you get to the declared target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:


Rather than "Roll a D6 to determine the explosion radius. Each model in that radius immediately suffers a S3 hit," the Volatile RAW is that "Every unit suffers a S3 hit for each model within D6" of a Pyrovore." Key word every, as in all models on the table (arguably in the multiverse."

The rule version in the picture says within d6" of the slain pyrovore. And the unit has to have a model within that radius, otherwise it suffers nothing.

bouncingboredom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


A previous edition had wording that wasn't a problem for 99% of players, but some folk decided, due to a GW sentence structure quirk, that it hit every unit on the table if it exploded. Oh they must be so much fun at games night.

Wow, not sure how even with the clumsy sentence structure people came to that conclusion. Like you say, must have been to play against.

The Blood Lance rule seems fairly self explanatory. Draw your line, go to the first model along the line and roll a d6. On a 5+ that models unit takes a mortal wound. Progress to the next model under the line and repeat until you get to the declared target.

I foresee someone then pulling the second model under the line and arguing I can't roll my second D6. Or, you know, something. Then I argue that I only checked for the models once, regardless of rolling individually. And we're still spending 5 minutes arguing a rule that should be worded better.

bouncingboredom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


A previous edition had wording that wasn't a problem for 99% of players, but some folk decided, due to a GW sentence structure quirk, that it hit every unit on the table if it exploded. Oh they must be so much fun at games night.

Wow, not sure how even with the clumsy sentence structure people came to that conclusion. Like you say, must have been to play against.

The Blood Lance rule seems fairly self explanatory. Draw your line, go to the first model along the line and roll a d6. On a 5+ that models unit takes a mortal wound. Progress to the next model under the line and repeat until you get to the declared target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:


Rather than "Roll a D6 to determine the explosion radius. Each model in that radius immediately suffers a S3 hit," the Volatile RAW is that "Every unit suffers a S3 hit for each model within D6" of a Pyrovore." Key word every, as in all models on the table (arguably in the multiverse."

The rule version in the picture says within d6" of the slain pyrovore. And the unit has to have a model within that radius, otherwise it suffers nothing.

The key is that "every unit suffers." Not "every unit within d6" suffers."

Mind you, half of this RAW reaching memetic status is due to the reputation of the Pyrovore being an awful unit, and Cruddace being incompetent.

Larks wrote:
I foresee someone then pulling the second model under the line and arguing I can't roll my second D6. Or, you know, something. Then I argue that I only checked for the models once, regardless of rolling individually. And we're still spending 5 minutes arguing a rule that should be worded better.

I would have thought the intent is fairly clear that the number of models affected by the rule is determined from the moment the line is drawn. The dice rolling is done first and then the casualties are removed.

MagicJuggler wrote:The key is that "every unit suffers." Not "every unit within d6" suffers."

Mind you, half of this RAW reaching memetic status is due to the reputation of the Pyrovore being an awful unit, and Cruddace being incompetent.

I would argue that while the wording of the rule is not the best, the intent is pretty obvious. Anyone trying to use the alternate "interpretation" would get a pyrovore inserted into their and run out of opponents pretty quick I'd imagine.

Let's not rehash 7th Edition RAW Wars. That way lies madness and sadness...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Let's not rehash 7th Edition RAW Wars. That way lies madness and sadness...

Aye. The Blood Lance rule seems pretty obvious really.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Let's not rehash 7th Edition RAW Wars. That way lies madness and sadness...

True enough.

This thread has undoubtedly run it's course. If a mod could be so kind as to lock it, I would appreciate it.

Apparently there's a third interpretation too:

A line only has two dimensions, so technically the "center" of the line would only refer to its midpoint.