Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: PhoenixFire on March 04, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
-
it is apparently that time already, new codex means new stuff that needs an faq.
from BOLS
ISSUE #1 - Burning Chariot of Tzeentch
Ok, now follow me through this...
The Exalted Flamer (C) is the Rider of the Chariot.
The vehicle he's riding is a Chariot, Open-Top, Fast, Skimmer.
Both of the Exalted Flamer's weapons are Heavy.
He is also the lone shooter, his chariot doesn't actually shoot.
He is not Relentless.
What does this mean?
He can't shoot if he moves. Well, he can shoot the Blue Fire, but it'll be Snap Fire. He can't shoot his Pink Fire at all.
Uhhh... what is the point of even having this unit? He can't do crap, even after after a DS.
ISSUE #2 - Herald Shenanigans
Some of the named characters such as Masque and Blue Scribes are not listed under Heralds.
Why does this matter?
Because they do not fit under the 4:1 rule. You literally have to buy them separate, taking up another HQ slot. For what? An 75/81 point model? You've got to be kidding...
Phil, tell us that it's just a typo - please!
Lastly, some people are bothered with this:
Heralds are 4:1, but only for Primary detachment: "Each primary detachment in your army may include up to four Heralds of Chaos.........This selection uses a single HQ slot".
This means that CSM players can only take 1 Herald as Allies. However, I'm willing to let this one slide due to game balance sakes.
PS: Oh, and for Pete's sake, replace Warpflame's "end of the game" with "turn". Please, thank you. Phil - help some gamers out - we need you man!
i don't play Daemons so i don't know what else is out there
-
Print books, then edit.
-
Print books, then edit.
Lol. Remembering the DA disgrace of an errata.
-
I'm remembering the "BUY MORE HELDRAKES" portion of the Chaos one...
-
So, can we actually get a ruling on the burning chariot thing? If I tell the guy, "no, I'm sorry, if you move you can't shoot your torrent" how big a dick am I being?
Cuz to me, that's obviously not what they intended. But you guys (mostly) are all cult of RAW, and that it is clearly what the rules actually say.
-
So, can we actually get a ruling on the burning chariot thing? If I tell the guy, "no, I'm sorry, if you move you can't shoot your torrent" how big a dick am I being?
Cuz to me, that's obviously not what they intended. But you guys (mostly) are all cult of RAW, and that it is clearly what the rules actually say.
well he CAN shoot it... just can't move and shoot it. I agree it's probably not RAI, maybe the guy is supposed to have relentless.
GW has been quick lately with FAQs so hopefully they follow suite here, if not Sam is going to have to make a call before the 1850 at the end of the month so people can plan ahead
No Daemon player is going to want to bring these with a certain plan in their mind only to find out they can't use it the day of.
-
Has there been ruling or clarity on the Slaneesh initiative modifier problem? Apparently the assault rules explicitly state you walk initiative steps from 10 to 1 and the -5 I modifier can easily reduce a model to 0... which would be outside of the 10-1 attack steps (and thus render the model with 0 I unable to attack).
While I think it is not what was intended, I did watch 2 gents argue about it on Sunday so I figured I would see if it needed to be added to the list of FAQs.
-
I am not sure what happens when you try to force an Initiative below 1 (personally inclined to just say that 1 is the bottom) but regardless I do not see "unable to attack" as a valid interpretation.
-
There is no such thing as I 0 so it becomes a 1
-
While I think it is not what was intended, I did watch 2 gents argue about it on Sunday so I figured I would see if it needed to be added to the list of FAQs.
So, one of them was trying to say the rules said divide by zero, a singularity occurs, and so you can't attack, and they were both "gents"? Error, error, does not compute.
-
So, can we actually get a ruling on the burning chariot thing? If I tell the guy, "no, I'm sorry, if you move you can't shoot your torrent" how big a dick am I being?
Cuz to me, that's obviously not what they intended. But you guys (mostly) are all cult of RAW, and that it is clearly what the rules actually say.
If a bad rule results in a model not selling, they usually FAQ it pretty fast. That is really the onyl time.
-
There is no such thing as I 0 so it becomes a 1
Legitimately curious why you say this, as the rulebook allows for zero-level characteristics.
I am not sure what happens when you try to force an Initiative below 1 (personally inclined to just say that 1 is the bottom) but regardless I do not see "unable to attack" as a valid interpretation.
I have no dog in this fight, was just passing along an observation as I can see either side of it. If a model's strength, toughness, or wounds is reduced to zero it dies. If its WS or attacks are reduced to zero it cannot strike... whether right or not, I can see why someone would assume initiative works similarly to WS or A of 0, especially when the combat rules explicitly say there are 10 initiative steps, ending at 1.
HOWEVER... GW also explicitly included rules for what to do with nearly all zero-level characteristics. If they wanted I0 to have no attacks, why not include it with the part about WS or A like they did when they grouped S, T and W together. You could also argue the 10->1 initiative was an oversight, and I0 just goes after I1 (meaning after power fists, axes, and models charging through terrain without grenades).
All-in-all I can see both sides and the solution does not appear cut-and-dry, to me at least. :o
-
I'm not really interested in how rules can be misread to generate ridiculous situations. It's good to remind everyone that GW does not write precise rules using technical language--they often do not even try. (almost unfortunately, they DO try (usually fail) sometimes, leading to unrealistic expectations in other instances)
I think it's pretty clear that the initiative system bottoms at 1 and caps at 10. It's not explicitly said , but I nonetheless think it's pretty clear. A reasonable person could maybe wonder if you can have initiative 0 or less, though.
A reasonable person could not assume that leaves you unable to attack.
-
Second time I've noticed it.....you know what agreement sounds like on the internet?
Silence.
-
Well the FAQ is out in german and of course says nothing about the questions we actually had
FAQ's are out in German now, and of course we have the google translations for them. It seems like a lot of the answers that we were hoping for, did not make it. However, taking a closer look, everything that was answered was erratas, not actual Faqs. So perhaps this is just a quick answer to some serious issues in German.
I fully expect that this simply deals wth rules issues in German, and that a proper FAQ is on its way shortly. So lets not jump on the this sucks because none of the questions were answered scenario. The update is only in German, and included no Faq questions, only erratas.
via Hero's Gaming Blog by Hero
From the German site, because they always get stuff faster than us:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3080052a_GER_Chaosdaemonen_v1.0a_Maerz13.pdf
Google translate:
Errata
Page 26 - demon of Tzeentch
replace the last sentence with the following: "In addition
Tzeentch demons repeat all protection drafts
of 1 "
Page 49, 100, Sections - disease drones device-type,
change the device-type to "cavalry with schwebemo
Module "or cavalry with floating module (Charaktermo
dell) ".
Page 66 - powerful rewards, Obesity
change the sentence as follows: "the demon has +1 life
point and the special rule it does not die. "
Page 104 - demon of Tzeentch
Change the last half sentence as follows: "protect drafts of 1
be "repeated.
Summary - Icon of Chaos
replace the first paragraph with the following: "If
you the melee bestimmst result, you add one
Results point to your website, in particular if the
melee at least one friendly unit with an
Bound icon of chaos. "
NOTHING about the Tzeentch Chariot.
NOTHING about Masque and Blue Scribes not being Heralds.
NOTHING about Fiends reducing I to 0.
NOTHING about Heralds being Primary detachment only.
-
So, it sounds more like an errata for German translation errors than anything else. Not a real FAQ.
-
Summary - Icon of Chaos replace the first paragraph with the following: "If you the melee bestimmst result, you add one Results point to your website, in particular if the melee at least one friendly unit with an Bound icon of chaos. "
That's exactly how I read it.
-
I'm not really interested in how rules can be misread to generate ridiculous situations. It's good to remind everyone that GW does not write precise rules using technical language--they often do not even try. (almost unfortunately, they DO try (usually fail) sometimes, leading to unrealistic expectations in other instances)
I think it's pretty clear that the initiative system bottoms at 1 and caps at 10. It's not explicitly said , but I nonetheless think it's pretty clear. A reasonable person could maybe wonder if you can have initiative 0 or less, though.
A reasonable person could not assume that leaves you unable to attack.
Second time I've noticed it.....you know what agreement sounds like on the internet?
Silence.
Normally I would ignore jabs like these, but this one actually reminded me of a funny story I once heard: A man was driving in the middle of nowhere down a secluded country road far from any cities. He got a flat tire, and got out to walk for help. After walking for some time, he came to a small stone monastery. He knocked on the door and roused the monks. "I've got a flat tire. Can I use your phone?" He asked.
The monks said they were sorry, but they did not have a phone. "If you stay tonight, you can get a ride on our wagon into town tomorrow," they said. So the man stayed the night, and they put him in a small room in the monastery.
In the middle of the night, the man was awakened suddenly by a noise. Not just any noise, but the loudest, most wonderful, most terrifying, most hair-raising noise ever.
He sat there, his heart beating for a few minutes, and he heard it again!Getting out of bed, he went running in the direction of the noise. It came again, making the hair on the back of his neck rise and his skin crawl. Finally, he came to a large door where the head monk was standing. The door was at least 15 feet tall, and made of solid-looking wood and metal. It had chains and bars and locks and a deadbolt on it, and was the most formidable door the man had ever seen.
"What was that sound?" He asked. "What made it? Is it behind that door?"
The head monk shook his head. "I'm sorry," he said. "I can't tell you; you're not a monk."
As the man turned away, he heard the noise again. "You have to tell me what it is," he begged.
"I'm sorry, I can't tell you, you're not a monk," said the monk.
The man tried to sleep, but couldn't get the noise out of his head. In the morning, as he was getting ready to leave, he heard the sound again. It made his ears ring and his mind whirl. "Please tell me what made that sound," he asked.
But the monks wouldn't. "I'm sorry, you're not a monk" was all they said.
The man left, and eventually got his car fixed and went back to his life. But he couldn't get the sound out of his mind. After a few months, he got in his car and drove and drove until he found the monastery again. He got out of his car and found the head monk. "I can't forget that sound from that night I was here. Please, please please tell me what made that sound." The head monk just shook his head.
"I can't tell you; you're not a monk," he said. "Then tell me how I can become a monk," the man said.
The head monk said "It's very difficult. Are you sure you want to do this?" The man said "I've got to. I have to know what made that sound. "The head monk said, "To join us, you have to perform several tasks. Your first task is to count all of the stars visible in the sky."
The man thought about how hard that would be, but he had to know what made that sound. He sat up every night for a year, counting the stars over and over until he was sure how many stars were visible in the sky. He went to the head monk and told him, and the monk nodded.
"Very good. Your next task is to count all of the grains of sand on the beaches around the world. "The man knew this would be even harder, but he could not get the noise out of his head. He had to know what, what kind of animal, could make that terrible horrible mind-bending sound. So he left on his journeys. He crawled the length and breadth of every beach in the world, counting the grains of sand, and he returned to the monastery years later. The head monk heard his answer and nodded.
"Excellent. You are almost done. Your final task is to climb to the peak of the highest mountain in the world, and see yourself in relation to the rest of creation." And the man knew this would be hard, but he outfitted himself, and he went to the highest mountain in the world, and he climbed to the top, and returned months later, older and wiser and more tired than years before when he had first heard the noise, the noise that would not leave his mind and that echoed in his every waking thought.He returned, and the head monk saw that he was wiser, and said "At last, you are a monk. Come with me."
And they walked through the monastery, its twisting and turning halls, and as they went the man heard the noise again, over and over, and he was no longer sure if it was the noise or merely his memory of it.And finally, finally, he stood in front of the door and the head monk opened it up, and the man saw what had made the noise.
But, I can't tell you what it was. You're not a monk.
Great stuff right? But what's the point of the story? It is much like the logic in your first post... there isn't any.
The initiative system DOES explicitly bottom at one in combat, it IS explicitly said. However, characteristics can be zero, that also is explicitly said. There are also multiple precedents for characteristics being reduced to zero, and when seven of the possible nine characteristics are zero they result in a model being unable to do anything associated with that characteristic. Does I0 result in a model being unable to attack? Damned if I know, but it certainly is not a clear-cut situation.
How about the cases when GW does not want a characteristic to go to zero? Reduce attacks... to a minimum of 1, reduce leadership to a minimum of 2... those are the exceptions to the rule. Why did they need to call out "to a minimum"? Because characteristics can be zero. I would like to think whoever wrote the Daemons codex has played at least a little 40k before and realizes that the vast majority of the armies and units out there are NOT I6 or higher, so if they wanted the negative five initiative modifier to drop things to one they would have included "to a minimum of one", like the other exceptions to the "zero is an acceptable number" rule. They also could have written the ability as "reduce initiative to one" rather than a number higher than nearly all standard initiatives out there - but they did not, leaving the situation ambiguous, which is why it needs a FAQ.
Present some actual evidence why being unable to attack is "unreasonable" and we can actually have a discussion. I would recommend by beginning with how I0 is different from WS0, BS0, S0, T0, W0, A0, or an Armor Save of - (as a zero-level characteristic "is also occasionally represented by a '-' "). Be careful though, I hear GW does not write precise rules using technical language so any attempt to ask "hey, what happens when X?" can result in unwarranted smugness on the internet. :)
-
New favorite thread.
-
TL; DR
Simon, you are not a reasonable person.
-
I didn't find a rule explicitly and singularly stating the lowest possible Initiative.
But there is this, on Page 22.
"This means that each combat will have ten Initiative steps, starting at Initiative 10 and working down to Initiative 1."
Citing sources and rules helps every discussion... I'm sorry, "argument."
-
Aye Ben, that's what leads to the entire confusion. As page 22 states combat only allows I10-I1 to participate, but page 3 indicates you can have I0. I0 is below I1, outside of the 10-1 bracket for combat. So does that mean combatants reduced to I0 would not be able to participate? Page 3 also explicitly notes WS0 and A0 means you cannot attack at all, so it is not out of the realm of possibility that I0 means the same thing - it just isn't clear.
The open question is really "what happens at I0?" to which I do not think anyone will find a clear answer until an Errata or FAQ is published - hence adding the question to the list of stuff to FAQ for daemons.
-
You are attempting to apply strict logic to rule that are not written in that manner.
Yaaaaaayyyyy, you're wicked good at making bad rules worse. Good for you.
I do not in any way think the the rules support either initiatives below 1 nor that such a initiative would result in being unable to attack. Worse, I think it doesn't really matter, cuz the idea is super, wicked clearly not intended. You should put the whole idea down, and back away slowly. I do not really care about your reasoning on the matter.
Just put the question in that official FAQ thread, get a ruling from Sam, and we can be done with it. I highly doubt he would rule that they become anything other than I 1, but if he does, GREAT. Anything with l 5 or less (so, nearly everything) will obviously just get rick-rolled by seekers.
Can your painting service get that slaneesh army to you by the 30th, Simon? Awesome, good talk.
-
You are attempting to apply strict logic to rule that are not written in that manner.
Yaaaaaayyyyy, you're wicked good at making bad rules worse. Good for you.
I do not in any way think the the rules support either initiatives below 1 nor that such a initiative would result in being unable to attack. Worse, I think it doesn't really matter, cuz the idea is super, wicked clearly not intended. You should put the whole idea down, and back away slowly. I do not really care about your reasoning on the matter.
Just put the question in that official FAQ thread, get a ruling from Sam, and we can be done with it. I highly doubt he would rule that they become anything other than I 1, but if he does, GREAT. Anything with l 5 or less (so, nearly everything) will obviously just get rick-rolled by seekers.
Can your painting service get that slaneesh army to you by the 30th, Simon? Awesome, good talk.
You're in a 25 minute timeout. Stay in your chair and face the corner young man. If I hear anymore out of you I'll have to call your parents.
-
Second time I've noticed it.....you know what agreement sounds like on the internet?
Silence.
Stop being such a piece of shit Matt. People don't respond to you because you are not worth engaging in discussion half the time*. You've stated your absolute position that only unreasonable people disagree with you, based on nothing but your opinion of how something should work. There is a name for people who think that way, a jack-ass.
While I applaud your recent awakening to the notion that GW is terrible at rule-writing and that perhaps dedicated hobbyists who are more invested in the balance of the game rather than selling product might be able to come up with a better rule system, that doesn't mean that you are now the sole arbiter of what the GW rules ACTUALLY SAY.
I think you'd get along with these guys. (http://youtu.be/e5YOzFuYMH8)
*I am being charitable with half the time.
-
Ok.....
And here I was, taking your advice and just not saying anything for awhile.
The truth is I'd be pretty willing to discuss the technicalities of the rule with most people...but not with Simon. But I also think most people agree on my basic proposition: "The initiative bottoms at 1 because it's obvious that's what happens". Dissecting the rules like it's programming code is not required .. and never really works anyway. So I don't think that leaves too many people to debate it with.
I'd really prefer Sam just make a pronouncement and we can skip the debate. I'll go back to fantasizing about my Tau.
-
Yup. Favoritest.
-
Sadly, I doubt they will FAQ that the Masque and Blue Scribes should be Heralds.
(It's kind of funny that this sort of thing would even be considered a Frequently Asked Question rather than an errata. Only with Games Workshop. I guess the actual Question would be "They're not heralds? WTF?"
If they were Heralds, I could see some people (like myself) messing around with the Masque and the Blue Scribes just because they seem like so much fun. But, if you have to use a precious HQ slot on them (can we all agree that HQ seems both the most interesting and most effective slot in this codex) there's no way these guys will ever leave the sidelines, ever.
-
Well, fluff wise, I thought the lue scribes clearly were not heralds. They're librarian....things.
And the Masque is powerful enough, I'm glad you can't take her, 3 heralds and a greater demon.
-
Part of the letdown is that both of those units were heralds (2 to an hq slot) in the last codex.
I don't think the Masque is very good. She's got toughness 3, 2 wounds, no eternal warrior, is not an independent character, has a 12" radius on her ability, and costs 75 points. A drop pod's stormbolter has a decent chance of taking her out. So with the short range you really have to deep strike her. It's almost inconceivable that she won't die the turn she comes in, giving her 1 turn to dance. I guess that could be worth 75 points if you stopped like a Paladin Deathstar from charging for a turn... but i just can't see anyone saying "yeah I'll run that instead of my Lord of Change/ 4 heralds/ whatever".
-
Now I think she should be an ic, otherwise she's useless.
-
As page 22 states combat only allows I10-I1 to participate, but page 3 indicates you can have I0.
I understand both sides, but I believe the Page 3 argument to be wrong.
Do you mind quoting the source on Page 3 word for word?
If you're looking at the Zero-Level Characteristics paragraph, that rule does not call out Initiative specifically where it calls out other stats individually. I feel that's important.
I also feel like we'd be inventing a rule for Initiative Zero where there's already a rule indicating I1 is the bottom most initiative.
That's usually my litmus test. Are we making shit up, or applying rules already in the book?
-
As page 22 states combat only allows I10-I1 to participate, but page 3 indicates you can have I0.
I understand both sides, but I believe the Page 3 argument to be wrong.
Do you mind quoting the source on Page 3 word for word?
If you're looking at the Zero-Level Characteristics paragraph, that rule does not call out Initiative specifically where it calls out other stats individually. I feel that's important.
I also feel like we'd be inventing a rule for Initiative Zero where there's already a rule indicating I1 is the bottom most initiative.
That's usually my litmus test. Are we making shit up, or applying rules already in the book?
While I fear we are going to be at an impasse until it is actually FAQ'd, I appreciate the civility and will certainly walk through the source citations. ;D
Page 2 -> At the top: "All but one of the characteristics are rated on a scale from 0 to 10. The odd characteristic out is Armour Save (Sv) which can run from 2+ through 6+ to - (for models with no Armour Save)."
Page 2 -> Modifiers: "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it, multiplying it, or even setting its value. Attacks and wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10. No characteristic can be modified below 0"
So, I think we will all be in agreement up to this point that I0 is explicitly possible.
Page 3 -> Zero-Level Characteristics: "Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."
It continues on with examples for most of the zero level characteristics. It does NOT include what happens at I0 (that would be too easy!). I think we will also be in agreement up to this point.
Page 22 -> Initiative Steps: "To represent this, a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models engaged in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. This means each combat will have ten Initiative steps, starting at Initiative 10 and working down to Initiative 1."
This is where I think the disagreement lies. The way I (and to be fair, others) have read this is not that initiative is hard floored at 1, as that contradicts the clear rules on page 2. The "working down to 1" refers to the combat sequence, limiting fighting the combat phase to models with I10 through I1. I do not feel we are making up a rule, and I absolutely agree there is nothing explicit saying I0 models lose their attacks. However, if we go by page 22 and combat stops at I1, then there is no I0 initiative step and the models just do not get a chance to go. I am sure some will argue it is semantically splitting hairs, but it is very much the difference between making up a rule and just following what is in the book. Sorry for the slight aside, but I definitely do not feel any rules are being made up here, this is just where the interpretation part comes in and why things get ugly. Stating that being at I0 means models lose their chance to strike does slightly align with the fluffiness of page 3's "which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field" comment, but that is hardly robust nor conclusive.
So the turn fiends charge (and only that turn I believe) the recipients of the charge are I0. I think we can all agree on this.
We are left to figure out what impact I0 actually has. :(
Also, who the heck is Simon? ???
-
I think that's gonna be pretty tough to follow.
Seems pretty clear to me that I0 is a thing (page 2). Coming to a different conclusion based on that text seems impossible.
I don't think the rule on page 22 contradicts anything at all. You work down from high to low, starting with 10 and ending at 1, just like it says. Have I0? Sorry, homie. You may have attacks, but you don't get to use them.
Maybe it's stupid, maybe it's not intended, but it's sure as hell what the rules say.... right?
If there is not FAQ by the 21st, I'll have Sam make his call. Is this a practical thing, or does it involve a combination that no one is ever going to actually use?
-
I appreciate the response. I wish more people responded like this. Actually, I wish every rules argument was framed like that.
I still find room for disagreement, of course. :D At this point, I'm presenting arguments more for fun and practice, because the rules do contradict themselves (Page 2 and Page 22).
Page 3 -> Zero-Level Characteristics: "Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."...
I see a difference between a model given Init 0 and a model whose score is modified during a game. To me, that's the difference whether a model is intended to attack.
Here's another rub. If models were meant to lose attacks, there are other mechanics that state when an effect reduces attacks (usually, but not always IIRC, to a minimum of 1). But consistent language for GW has always been a problem... even 20 pages later in the same rulebook.
Then there's the implication of what -5 Init means on the table. Fiends swing at I5. Anything less than base Init 10 is swinging after the Fiends. Right?
To Games Workshop,
Why not say, Fiends swing always swing first, OR Fiends count as Init 10 in close-combat, OR enemies engaged with Fiends in assault have their Init reduced to Init 1, OR enemies engaged with Fiends in assault always swing last, even after Init 1?? FOUR fairly clear examples of how the rule could be written more clearly.
To Chase,
If the ruling comes to mean enemies cannot swing back in assault, it's a safe bet someone will try to play with Fiends. It's still far from a bad thing if ruled the other way.
-
Also, who the heck is Simon?
I thought you were. Sorry.
Changing topic:
I honestly believe that RAI > RAW in many cases. I do not believe GW has given much thought to what happens if an initiative goes down to 0. Previously there was no mechanic for that happening.
You could also argue that counting down from I 10 to 1 was merely illustrative, as that was all the initiative steps that were possible.
I mean the answer is pretty clear: Do you, in any way, actually think that GW meant 95% of things charged by seekers to be unable to attack, at all? No? Well, then there's your answer.
-
I think that the RAW is that when seekers charge anything with I less than 6, they lose their attacks.
RAI? Who knows. My bet is that there is no intention at all, because no one at GW thought of it.
RATSB (Rules as They Should Be) in my opinion is that they strike at I1 instead.
-
That being said, I kinda hope that they intended, and issue an FAQ saying that the victims lose their attacks. Otherwise, I think my fiends (maybe my favorite daemon conversions / paint jobs in my army) aren't going to come out of their display case much.
-
RATSB (Rules as They Should Be) in my opinion is that they strike at I1 instead.
This makes the most sense to me as i'm a makes sense kinda guy.
I look at it as are there any other things in the 40k world that lower attacks to I1? sure lots.
Is there anything that stops your melee death star from being able to attack completely? not that i'm aware of
Hopefully this is how Sam rules and we can just go from there until a FAQ comes out and either confirms, contradicts, or ignores the problem
-
RATSB (Rules as They Should Be) in my opinion is that they strike at I1 instead.
This makes the most sense to me as i'm a makes sense kinda guy.
I look at it as are there any other things in the 40k world that lower attacks to I1? sure lots.
Is there anything that stops your melee death star from being able to attack completely? not that i'm aware of
Hopefully this is how Sam rules and we can just go from there until a FAQ comes out and either confirms, contradicts, or ignores the problem
Pretty much my thinking.
-
Oh look, one of these. I guess it's inevitable with a new codex. Once again, we're at a textual ambiguity, so we enter the realm of "what's reasonable?" In this case, the rules explicitly mention several cases in which a characteristic of zero has specific consequences (for strength, attacks, and so on). No such mention is made of initiative. Also, in the initiative section, it says (in bold text) that you work from highest to lowest. Then, in non-bold text, it explains that you will thus have ten steps, from 10 to 1.
My inclination is to go with the bold text, and take the "10 to 1" bit as a general rule, which can be altered by the specifics. So in the absence of an FAQ, I'd allow Initiative 0 models to strike, just after power fists and the like. This is, of course, subject to change if Games Workshop clears up the textual ambiguity.
-
Perfect, thanks Sam!
-
My inclination is to go with the bold text, and take the "10 to 1" bit as a general rule, which can be altered by the specifics. So in the absence of an FAQ, I'd allow Initiative 0 models to strike, just after power fists and the like. This is, of course, subject to change if Games Workshop clears up the textual ambiguity.
So to be clear, this ruling places all models whose Initiative would be brought below zero to this new "Initiative zero"?
-
No characteristics can be modified below zero. Page 2.
-
Hey Sam... you just made my day (or, all the days until I fear that the FAQ will come in and say that the affected models just go to I1)... since charging through terrain only makes you go down to I1, this means that when fiends charge something through terrain, they strike first since 1 > 0. Maybe I'll get some mileage out of my fiends for a bit.
-
I am alright with there being an initiative 0, that is below power fists, charging through cover, and all the other things that make you I 1. I am bothered that a new initiative step is springing into being, out of whole cloth, seemingly by accident.
Ah, well, GW's fault. Good ruling Sam.
-
Also, who the heck is Simon?
I thought you were. Sorry.
Changing topic:
I honestly believe that RAI > RAW in many cases. I do not believe GW has given much thought to what happens if an initiative goes down to 0. Previously there was no mechanic for that happening.
You could also argue that counting down from I 10 to 1 was merely illustrative, as that was all the initiative steps that were possible.
I mean the answer is pretty clear: Do you, in any way, actually think that GW meant 95% of things charged by seekers to be unable to attack, at all? No? Well, then there's your answer.
I agree with this Matt. Just a point of advice. Don't try to argue what the rules actually say, while arguing how you think it should be played at the same time. Certainly don't be condescending towards people who disagree with "how you think it should be played" as if they aren't reading what the rules say. They are very separate points, and can(and should) be argued separately.
I think GW meant to sell models. So in a month if Slannesh stuff is not selling, you might not be able to attack.
-
Mea culpa.