For the first time I can remember, GW have set out a clear, and easy to follow process for resolving multiple modifier in the rules, instead of having to FAQ individual weapon interactions (Gabriel Seth's Blood Reaver and Furious Charge, for instance.)
In of itself, this is a good thing.
The way in which they've chosen to resolve such conflicts, by disregarding any other modifiers where a set value is involved, and only taking the set value modifier, is possibly not how I'd have done it - but it's consistent with previous rules, and within the rules themselves. This is absolutely fine and dandy - it's not a bad change overall.
I mean, sure, it creates an issue wherein Tau Markerlights cannot be used to increase the Ballistic Skill of a unit intend on firing Snap Shots, including against Flyers (removing Tau's main anti-air hope) or as Overwatch (which could only be with the involvement of Marker Drones, as far as I can discern...)
Tau are limited to BS1 for these things, irrespective of other factors. Shame, but given the other crap they have to deal with, perhaps not that bad a situation.
No, where this causes a hole in the rules - and not necessarily a hard one to fix, but the only solution I can see is a roll-off, which is a bad answer conceptually; I'll explain.
If you have a roll-off situation, in a tournament, that does three main things:
- It rewards luck over reasoning - ok, it's unlikely a player will convince his opponent his interpretation is correct, but both should have a chance to convince an impartial arbitrator to their side. I know I certainly will respect a judge more if he makes a wrong judgment call than if he bottles it and makes us roll a freaking dice. We roll enough already thanks - it's your place to decide here.
- It creates a bad precedent, by setting a null precedent. By making a ruling, good or bad, you set a standard by which other players can learn and play for future games or turns. If it comes up once, odds are it will come up again at some stage. If you can resolve it with at least grudging acceptance from the players, then everyone will know where they stand in future, rather than getting a 50% chance of not working the same next time around.
- It rewards players who know or believe they are incorrect for sticking to their guns and being stubborn and intractable. Admirable as those qualities are in the sons of the Lion or descendants of Dorn, players should not be rewarded for what could be claimed to be unsportsmanlike conduct.
So, if we can agree a roll-off is bad (if not, let's roll off...) then we know that an FAQ is preferable to randomising the results so a genuine hole in the rules. WHAT IS THIS HOLE, sayeth you. Well, here it is:
What happens when two pieces of Wargear or special rules interact that both apply a set value, and therefore contradict?
Example:
Jeff owns this model:
This model is clearly equipped with a Power Axe, and a Shuriken Pistol (alternative pattern, cf 3e 40k Designers Notes.) A Power Axe has the Unwieldy special rule, making it strike at Initiative 1. The model also, however, has a Banshee Mask. This item of Wargear states "In the first round of an assault a model wearing a Banshee mask has Initiative 10".
There's an argument, of course, that I10 S4 AP2 attacks are overpowered. Then again, suck it. If you think Howling Banshees are overpowered, even with this boost, then you may want to revise your definitions of good units. It'd make them good, sure - but not amazing. No duality, cost..ugh, it should be obvious.
If a player went to the effort of converting or eBaying a whole unit of these old Banshees, then fair play to them, and I'd happily permit it.
Then again, I own a few, so perhaps my bias is showing...
End of the day, the example is irrelevant - what matter is that there is no rule for resolving these conflicts, and it's possible more exist and I simply haven't realised.
At least in this specific case we can probably agree that since Codex > BRB, the Banshee Mask trumps Unwieldy...
17 comments:
honestly, if the Game designers thing an axe is as hard to swing as a two handed sledge hammer, They've got some physical research to do. I'm really just ignoring the unweildy on axes and using them as regular power weapons. Then again, I don't go to tournies. *shrug*
I'd be inclined to disagree. An axe in general has one cutting edge. This effectively gives you only one method of striking blows, i.e. chopping. A 'chop' strike is dependant wholely on the force applied to the weapon during the swing, and the weight of head of the axe. Thus in order to be truely effective, the distribution of weight of an axe needs to be off centre, i.e the more weight at the top, the more potential damage.
Obviously the offset of adding weight to the weapon, particularly in this case were we are adding weight off centre, is a reduction in acceleration of the swing.
On the flip side, a sword is lighter than an axe, as the sword is predominately a cutting weapon. For this, the strength and the sharpness of the blade are the relevent factors, and the force applied by the user a secondry concern. As a cutting weapon, the sword gives you a multitude of potential uses, from slashing, stabbing and, indeed, chopping.
The balance of a sword is also set in the hilt. This means the weight of the weapon sits directly on top of the users hand, and not two foot away at the end of the weapon in an axe. As a result, the direction of the 'swing' of a sword can be altered and changed with less effort and a greater speed.
In summary, a sword will always be quicker at striking than an axe of idential weight, but when used by the same person, the user will be able to exert considerable more force on the object of his strike with an axe over what he would be able to with a sword due to the distribution of weight.
thus GW making a distinction between swords and axes is a good thing, as it does bring more realism into the game, and more important some variety. In terms of would it force you to swing as slowly as a Hammer? Well probably as they both function under the same principle of disprortionate weight to add to the force input of the user. Despite the obvious increase in weight of the thunderhammer over a power axe (from the perspective of size on the models) the thunderhammer is wielded in two hands, thus adding more strength to the users swing, and increasing acceleration.
So I'd go with yes, GW did get it right on this one. :)
As for the original post, I see the difficuly with the Power Axe Banshee, but looking from a rules perspective, the Banshee mask doesn't increase the wearers speed at striking blows, it STUNS the models being charged, thus I'd say it doesn't matter how slow the Banshee is swinging if the target is stood there gauping! Banshee first everytime for me.
The Tyranid FAQ says that when you have two contradictory Set Value Effects, you roll off each time the conflict comes up to determine which takes effect in that Phase.
It's in the entry for Lash Whips, but it's phrased as a general commentary on Set Value Effects.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they nerf the banshee mask into just granting the hammer of wrath ability.
And I10 AP2, S4! oh no! almost what they had last edition and they were so broken then. /sarcasm. I'd let it fly.
I agree with TGM... banshees... let it ride...
CK
You are wrong about Markerlights though. Tau FAQ says a vehicle shoots seekers with BS5 therefore overriding snapshot settings.
Yes, but thats always been the case with Seekers.
The seeker tracks its target down when launched, which is why it hits at BS5.
What he was talking about was the interaction between the Markerlight upgrading the BS of a model using Snap Fire from BS1 to whatever.
Personally, I have found nothing in the rules that says that explicitly says, one way or another, Markers cant be used to upgrade the BS of Snap Fire (i.e a phrase that says that the BS1 cant be modified).
But according to Stelek and Rick, it cant. But im still finding it hard to see why not.
Yes, but thats always been the case with Seekers.
Still rules are clear, if a vehicle wants to shoot anything when it's stunned it does so according to snap shot rules i.e. bs counts as 1. now if markerlights and snap shot had equal priority there would be a roll off. If snap shot had the priority shot would resolve at BS1. But it resolves at BS5 so markerlights take priority.
Plus, although everyone assumes that, wording of markerlight rules does not modify "model"s BS.
@Zob - true, so a situation comes up where you roll off, as the Nid FAQ tells us (2 opposing set values, BS1 vs BS5) though I'd be inclined to say Codex> BRB and give Seekers BS5 against Flyers.
Doesn't affect normal shots though.
But the seekers arent fired by the tank. It has no control over the seekers being fired.
So you dont use the BS of the tank to fire the Seeker.
Seekers can only be fired from Markerlight hits, and per the markerlight rules the seeker always hits at BS5, otherwise you would just get a direct hit everytime.
That hasnt changed, and shouldnt have been changed.
TBH, this seeker debate is a tad pointless.
Page 32 - A Compendium of Special Rules: "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Page 7 - Basic Versus Advandced: "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules." "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."
Emphasis in original.
Use the marker lights as the codex reads (with FAQ modifications). So, if I take my BT Techmarine, put him in a squad and he uses his signum, then the model he chooses gets to shoot at BS5, regardless of the other rules, like Snapfire for Zoomers or Overwatch against assaulters. Sure, the unit uses BS1, but that one model gets to use BS5.
Seekers are fired by the vehicle. Stop assuming and start reading the rules.
No they are not.
Tau Codex, Page 31,
"Up to two seeker missiles may be fitted with to a single vehicle, and one or both aunched in a single turn, each using different markerlight hits.........
(this is the important part)
Ordinarily, the vehice carrying the seeker missiles has no control over them and cannot launch them itself. The mechanism is remote and responds only to markerlight users.
The missiles may always be fired, each at different targets if relevent, regardless of the distance the vehicle has moved or whether it has any other weapons. They may also be fired if the vehicle has suffered a crew stunned."
To me that is very self explanatory.
The seeker is not fired by the vehicle. It can only be fired once a markerlight has hit its target.
Page 29, Markerlight rules. Bullet point 1
"To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit. This shooting is resolved normally in all regards at an assumed BS of 5"
This is also telling you that the seeker can only be fired from a markerlight hit, and not the vehicle.
Not only that, its always firing at BS5 to boot.
Zob, If you are going to argue about tau weaponry make sure you know the rules for them yourself.
"to allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile" part is flat out saying that vehicle is firing that seeker missile.
yes a markerlight is required before vehicle is permitted to fire but still it's the vehicle doing the firing part.
And the seeker is still shooting at BS5 regardless of snap fire rules. Second sentence clearly states this.
Even without the FAQ on the matter, this would still have been the case because you dont use the vehicles BS to shoot them.
The vehicle is just a carrier. It doesnt matter what happens to the vehicle (short of it being destroyed), those missile will always shoot at BS5.
So again the arguement is still pointless.
yeah yeah you win, I already did this argument before so its becoming boring for me.
Just because something becomes I10 doesn't supersede unwieldy, the I of the model itself may change, but the I of the weapon itself is the same. so the Banshee is I10, but the axe is still I1, and if you are swinging the axe, it's at I1
Post a Comment