Orbital Strikes; a review

[GTang]

Roll for scatter with 1d6.

 

If a hit is rolled, move the marker in the direction of the small arrow on the hit symbol.

If a miss is rolled, move the marker double the distance rolled on the d6 in the direction of the arrow.

 

Is this right?

While the WH FAQ says to ignore inaccuracy, it also says that you deviate 2d6" from that point. So I always just deviate 2d6" from that point, without considering a 'hit' a possibility. I'll follow the little arrow on the hit marker, and go 2d6" from that. There's no BS to subtract, so it's not as if it's going to follow the normal procedure anyway

 

---

 

It does call itself a melta torpedo. By the 'inferno pistol is actually melta because it mentions melta' from one of the FAQ, the torpedo should probably be considered melta, too. You still get to roll two dice and choose the higher number, as that ability comes from being ordinance barrage. Although there's also folk that argue the 2d6 pen method means the standard 2d6 choose higher rule is overridden (Codex overrides BRB), and folks that argue you should roll each d6 of the 2d6 with two dice and choose higher for each die (with the Vindicare's rending as a precedent). Who knows which is really right.

[Tauren]

I thought you could never ever roll any extra dice for armor penetration against a monolith beyond "normal" or strength +1d6

[GTang]

I thought you could never ever roll any extra dice for armor penetration against a monolith beyond "normal" or strength +1d6

The Ordinance thing isn't extra dice. It's roll two dice, choose the higher one.

 

Whether a melta torpedo is melta, whether the 2d6 applies to living metal, and how to use the Ordinance extra die procedure on a melta torpedo are, each of them, things that are debatable.

[number6]

Also, being an ordnance barrage weapon (well, being ordnance is enough), it rolls a total of Strength+3D6 against armour, discarding the lowest roll. Again, this is not a bonus, it is the normal rules for the weapon.

This is something I've always wondered about. It's never been clear how the melta torpedo's special rules for armour penetration interact with the default ordnance weapon rules of "roll 2 dice and discard the lowest" when it comes to armour penetration rolls. I see several ways to interpret this, and no obvious way to resolve which one is "correct".

 

a. Roll the special 2d6 pen roll only, ignoring the BRB ordnance armour pen rule. The melta torpedo pen roll is a codex-speciific rule that replaces the BRB default rule.

 

b. Roll two sets of 2d6 pen rolls and keep the highest set. Since the melta torp rolls 2d6 to begin with, that is the set of rolls from which the player gets to select the best result.

 

c. Roll each die of the melta torp's 2d6 roll independently, keep the highest die from each roll, then add them together to get the final pen total. Each independent die is the what the BRB rule allows the double roll on.

 

d. Roll 1d6 and roll 2d6, and keep the highest result from one or the other. Almost always it will be the 2d6 result, but the BRB specifies that you roll an additional 1d6, so that's what you do, even though it will rarely be helpful.

 

Oddly enough, I don't see any support for rolling 3d6 and discarding the lowest die. That doesn't seem to me to sync up with how the BRB ordnance armour pen roll is supposed to be used. [shrug] I could be wrong, though. :ermm:

 

IMHO, Occam's Razor applies, and therefor option "a" should win out. It's the easiest to explain and understand and shouldn't ever cause any arguments. There are no loopholes that are being exploited nor have the appearance of being exploited. All the other interpretations require, well, more interpretation than "a" does, and therefor can be quite problematic. Doesn't mean they're wrong! I'm just saying, they're more troublesome than I think it's ultimately worth. "a" is simple and requires no supporting arguments. The same cannot be said of any of the others.

 

Regarding a melta torpedo's interaction with the Necron Monolith, the Necron codex is quite clear. It's rule is not exclusive, merely exemplary.

 

[W]eapons that get additional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith.

 

It's pretty clear, therefore, that the melta torpedo doesn't get to roll it's 2d6 against it. However, you can still take advantage of the BRB's ordnance armour pen rules, because the very next sentence in the Necron codex is:

 

Ordnance weapons still roll 2d6 for Armour Penetration and select the highest score.

[Charred Heretic]

With the melta-strike, the profile is simply 'S8 AP3, roll 2D6 against armor'. It's not the 'melta' rule, or is it a bonus, it's simply the normal profile.

 

Also, being an ordnance barrage weapon (well, being ordnance is enough), it rolls a total of Strength+3D6 against armour, discarding the lowest roll. Again, this is not a bonus, it is the normal rules for the weapon.

 

Necron FAQ clarified that normal profiles apply (so powerfists still double Strength), and that the Vindicare turbo-penetrator rolls normally (3D6, no Strength value added). It also clarified that ordnance weapons still roll an extra dice and pick the highest.

 

/disagree

The language of the Living Metal rule is very explicit.

"Roll for armor penetration using unaugmented Str and a single D6 no matter what".

When we consult the profile table for the Melta Torpedo, we see Strength 8.

We're done there.

 

Obviously the Ordnance rule to choose the better of two dice is allowable.

 

The Turbo-Penetrator has no profile and no Str listed, so it's a unique case with a unique ruling.

The assassin's unique Str X weapon provides no relevant precedent.

 

Sorry mate.

I don't think your case works, and I know the gaming community would agree.

[Dragons]

Exactly what I was going to say Number 6!.. Only cleaner.. Neater.. and more to the point.. Less rambling...

 

Well.. The same POINT was made anyhow!

 

<_<

 

While the WH FAQ says to ignore inaccuracy, it also says that you deviate 2d6" from that point. So I always just deviate 2d6" from that point, without considering a 'hit' a possibility. I'll follow the little arrow on the hit marker, and go 2d6" from that. There's no BS to subtract, so it's not as if it's going to follow the normal procedure anyway

 

Okay.. Hands up.. Who thinks that an orbital strike doesn't come from a vehicle? (i.e. the SHIP in space isn't a vehicle)

 

anyone?

 

BS doesn't matter when templates are fired from vehicles ;)

 

-Dragons

[Reclusiarch Darius]

While the WH FAQ says to ignore inaccuracy, it also says that you deviate 2d6" from that point. So I always just deviate 2d6" from that point, without considering a 'hit' a possibility. I'll follow the little arrow on the hit marker, and go 2d6" from that. There's no BS to subtract, so it's not as if it's going to follow the normal procedure anyway

 

It's an ordnance barrage weapon, it follows the BRB with regards to this. Therefore, if you roll a hit on the scatter dice, the large blast template stays where it is.

 

It does call itself a melta torpedo. By the 'inferno pistol is actually melta because it mentions melta' from one of the FAQ, the torpedo should probably be considered melta, too.

 

The inferno pistol gains extra dice (and GW have clarified that it has the melta rule, no confusion there) when within 3" of a vehicle. This would obviously be negated by 'Living Metal'.

 

Melta-strike has a statline of S8, AP3, rolls 2D6 against AV. It's not bonus dice, or a special rule, thats it's statline.

Although there's also folk that argue the 2d6 pen method means the standard 2d6 choose higher rule is overridden (Codex overrides BRB), and folks that argue you should roll each d6 of the 2d6 with two dice and choose higher for each die (with the Vindicare's rending as a precedent). Who knows which is really right.

 

It really isn't that hard: you follow the statline of the weapon, including other abilities granted by generic rules. In this case, you add the statline of the melta-strike (S8, AP3, 2D6 against armour) and include it's ordnance barrage characteristic (ignoring non-area terrain/non-natural cover saves, as well as rolling another D6 when hitting vehicles and taking the higher roll).

Therefore, Strength (not always 8, halved to S4 if hole isn't over hull) +3D6 (discarding lowest roll), resolved against side AV value.

 

It's pretty clear, therefore, that the melta torpedo doesn't get to roll it's 2d6 against it.

 

'...Similarly, weapons that get additional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2D6 for Armour Penetration and select the highest score'

 

pg. 21, Codex: Necrons

 

Thats the rule. The FAQ just clarifies that powerfists etc get to double Strength like normal.

 

I see nothing there that says that the melta-strike doesn't use it's profile. Remember, the 2D6 in the profile isn't conferred by any special rule, thats what it rolls against armour.

Ordnance weapons are specifically mentioned as still getting their extra D6, so therfore the melta-torpedo still gets it's extra D6 like normal. So, therefore Strength+3D6, discarding the lowest.

/disagree

The language of the Living Metal rule is very explicit.

"Roll for armor penetration using unaugmented Str and a single D6 no matter what".

When we consult the profile table for the Melta Torpedo, we see Strength 8.

We're done there.

 

Nope, read it for yourself. It says 'bonus dice'. Chainfists, monstrous creatures and meltaguns are all mentioned as gaining 'additional dice' when attacking armour (under certain conditions, eg. melta weapon within half it's normal range). Your Strength may still be augmented (powerfists et al), its just any bonus dice are unable to be used.

 

Melta-strike doesn't get any bonus dice (except ordnance bonus), it just rolls Strength+2D6. The only bonus it does get (the extra D6 and discard the lowest) is specifically mentioned as being allowed.

The Turbo-Penetrator has no profile and no Str listed, so it's a unique case with a unique ruling.

The assassin's unique Str X weapon provides no relevant precedent.

 

I wanted to mention the Vindicare turbo-round, because its an example of what I mean. 3D6 is the profile, not a bonus he gets. So, you just roll like normal, with 3D6 being the total (Rending doesn't activate, because thats obviously bonus dice, which is no-go against 'Living Metal'.).

Sorry mate.

I don't think your case works, and I know the gaming community would agree.

 

If you just read the rules, you'll come to the same conclusion I have. It's clear-cut, logical and easy to follow.

[GTang]

It's an ordnance barrage weapon, it follows the BRB with regards to this. Therefore, if you roll a hit on the scatter dice, the large blast template stays where it is.

My feeling is that that line would have been moot if they meant it to be treated as an Ordinace Blast weapon in the FAQ. The first sentence alone would have covered the situation. So, I see it as a restriction. This may or may not be the mainstream view.

 

----

 

Anyway, the controversies have been mentioned and some of the logic behind the various positions are out. I'm not sure what more there needs to be said on the tactica of it, other than to choose which interpretation you think is right and go with it.

[Inquisitor Fox]

A fine point... remember to mention that the enemy does NOT have to be notified which piece of terrain the strike is keyed to in deployment. You just have to tell them you have one ^_^ Then watch them avoid every piece of terrain "just in case." It's a great terrain denial psychological weapon.

 

I always grab a scratch piece of paper, draw a rough diagram of the battlefield with terrain as little boxes, then mark the appropriate piece of terrain with an "X" and get some random passerby gamer who will likely be there for the whole battle to look at it, confirm it with initials or something, then go about their business. This way it's obvious I didn't change it's location mid battle.

[Charred Heretic]

Melta-strike has a statline of S8, AP3, rolls 2D6 against AV.

Patently false, sir.

The Weapon Strength in the statline is 8. Stop there. You're done.

That is the value being refered to in the Mommylith rule.

 

It's not bonus dice, or a special rule, thats it's statline.

Patently false again, sir.

It is precisely a special rule.

 

Proof:

Normal armor pen roll = 1D6

Special armor pen roll = [all methods other than 1D6]

So dry and so simple: it doesn't get any simpler.

 

What do you perceive is the difference between the Melta Torpedo and a Meltagun?

That GW didn't use the term "extra dice" in the description of the special effect of the Melta Torpedo?

Holy moly. That reasoning is shamefully biased. Not good, mate.

 

Not that I respect this Living Metal rule.

It is possibly the worst rule in the game.

They should have made it AV15 or "ignores first pen" or something very simple,

instead of this "jive" bull that tries to change other rules, and creates a web of crap.

[Kadaeux]

Not that I respect this Living Metal rule.

It is possibly the worst rule in the game.

They should have made it AV15 or "ignores first pen" or something very simple,

instead of this "jive" bull that tries to change other rules, and creates a web of crap.

 

Actually the rule is quite simple. In effect it disregards ANY special effect that would act against its armour. Chainfist benefits, Melta-bombs (I think), 6" Melta Shots etc.

[GTang]

Bring that up in rules instead of here, then, and get everyone in on the discussion. It might not get as many responses hidden here.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

My feeling is that that line would have been moot if they meant it to be treated as an Ordinace Blast weapon in the FAQ. The first sentence alone would have covered the situation. So, I see it as a restriction. This may or may not be the mainstream view.

 

They said in the FAQ just use the rules for Ordnance Barrage, ignoring the 'Inaccuracy' rule. A poorly-worded explanation of how scatter works (in the FAQ) doesn't change the fact that if you roll a 'hit' on the scatter dice, it stays where it is. Just follow the rule, you're overthinking it.

 

Patently false, sir.

The Weapon Strength in the statline is 8. Stop there. You're done.

That is the value being refered to in the Mommylith rule.

 

I'll write it out in it's entirety, so you understand:

 

0-1 Orbital Strike

 

.....................Pts.......Str.......AP......Notes

Melta-torpedo 80 8 3 Ordnance blast, 2D6 armour penetration

 

 

pg. 31, Codex: Daemonhunters

 

You don't stop at Strength, the notes clearly state that it has 2D6 armour penetration.

 

Patently false again, sir.

It is precisely a special rule.

 

So what is the rule called?...exactly. Its the statline. There's no getting around it.

 

Proof:

Normal armor pen roll = 1D6

Special armor pen roll = [all methods other than 1D6]

So dry and so simple: it doesn't get any simpler.

 

The normal armour penetration roll for a melta-strike is Strength+2D6 (ignoring it's ordnance bonus for a moment). Its not a 'special pen roll' or a 'special rule'. Its the statline.

What do you perceive is the difference between the Melta Torpedo and a Meltagun?

That GW didn't use the term "extra dice" in the description of the special effect of the Melta Torpedo?

Holy moly. That reasoning is shamefully biased. Not good, mate.

 

Er, the fact that the melta-torpedo, while having a remarklably similiar name, doesn't posses the melta rule. Therefore, it doesn't function like a meltagun (and thus only roll Strength+D6), it functions according to it's normal roll (which is Strength+2D6).

They had no need to use the term 'extra dice' or 'bonus dice', because none apply (except the ordnance bonus, which 'Living Metal' allows).

 

It's not biased, it's a simple reading of the rules. People are confusing themselves by not referring directly to the codex statline of the weapon. They conjure up the 'melta' rule or infer it's a 'bonus', when nothing in the unit entry suggest it is. The normal roll for a melta-strike is Strength+2D6. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Turn to pg 31 and read that statline entry.

 

Not that I respect this Living Metal rule.

It is possibly the worst rule in the game.

They should have made it AV15 or "ignores first pen" or something very simple,

instead of this "jive" bull that tries to change other rules, and creates a web of crap.

 

I disagree. It fits their fluff (semi-sentient metal that heals itself), it fits their rules (Monolith is their only vehicle, it will get shot to hell by heavy weapons, it's the linch-pin of any good Necron Phalanx-style army), and in my experience the Monolith is balanced. Yes, it's insanely survivable. Solution: don't shoot it, go for Phase Out (ie kill all his Warriors). It chews up a lot of points he could've spent on Warriors, and it doesn't even count towards Phase Out.

With my Tau, I do shoot it (railguns ;) ), but with any other army I ignore it and go for Phase Out.

GW has capped all vehicles at AV14 as a balance issue. They can't just break with convention on a whim (ok, they can and do, but this is an important pillar in the vehicle rules). Likewise, making it a psuedo-Defiler/something like Machine Spirit is weak.

 

Bring that up in rules instead of here, then, and get everyone in on the discussion. It might not get as many responses hidden here.

 

I dunno. I mean, we don't wanna bring in a pile of vanilla SM players who'll start talking about their Orbital Strike (which is a weaker shadow of our Lance Strike) and confusing us all even more. I prefer keeping this discussion amongst Inquisition players, because

 

A: We're the only ones who'll care either way, no one else can get the Heavy Support OS

B: Having said that, we'll be the ones best placed to judge how it works (because we're the only ones who can use it)

 

Dunno where I saw it, but apparently the Inquisition forum is one of the highest-traffic portions of the site. It could just be we're a tiny community thats highly active, but I'd like to think it's also 'casual' views and new people visiting :P . So, I think the thread will probably get just as much attention here (and better discussion).

[Charred Heretic]

You don't stop at Strength, the notes clearly state that it has 2D6 armour penetration.

 

I don't care if it states to use 10D6 for armor penetration.

It's not the Sr of the weapon.

 

Let's break it down, because they explicitly state this twice in the mommylith rule.

 

__________________________________

 

#1

"weapons... do not get the extra dice against the monolith."

 

What exactly does "extra dice" mean?

"Extra dice" is a meaningless reference, unless we know the standard method.

 

ARMOR PENETRATION on 40K 5th ed p.60:

"roll a D6 and add the weapon's Str to it"

 

That's the standard method for the AP Roll:

AP Roll = STR + 1 D6. That's the rule.

 

Thus "extra dice" in mommylith rule is a reference to anything outside the rule on p. 60.

You can't pretend that 60 does not exist. It is being referenced, and you must realize this now.

 

So what is the rule called?...exactly. Its the statline. There's no getting around it.

A special rule with a boldface title and a paragraph is not a stated or implied criterion for your case.

The 2D6 statement in Melta is an additional note, which is an exception to the rule on p. 60.

Get it now? It's undeniable.

 

______________________________________________________

 

As if that were not enough...

 

#2

The living metal rule goes on to restate,

"in practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will use its unaugmented Str and an additional D6 no matter what"

 

This language is so clear, so explicit, and so strong. It needs no elaboration.

You're done.

 

 

Dunno where I saw it, but apparently the Inquisition forum is one of the highest-traffic portions of the site. It could just be we're a tiny community thats highly active, but I'd like to think it's also 'casual' views and new people visiting :) . So, I think the thread will probably get just as much attention here (and better discussion).

/agree

And the topic also impacts the tactical material within this discussion.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Hmmm, I guess you're right Charred Heretic. Wishful thinking on my part

 

So yeah, Monolith remains un-fracking-killable. I'll amend the OP to reflect this. Mind you, I don't think this especially invalidates melta-strike as the default choice. Monolith is only in one army, it's the only vehicle and melta-strike is still handy for fragging the precious Warriors. Force Phase Out and the Monolith becomes meaningless. It's still tactically viable against Necron armies (although Lance Strike can instant-death a foot-slogging Lord).

[Charred Heretic]

RD, I just hope you don't believe in killing the bearer of bad news. :huh:

 

If you want to ask an admin to clear our the posts where we were disputing the rule, I have no problem with that.

Or just restart a new one with the rule discussion omitted.

 

I really hate how the Living Metal Rule is one of few rules that addresses other special rules, and I think that is just bad form.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

RD, I just hope you don't believe in killing the bearer of bad news. whistlingW.gif

 

We're not on Warseer bro ;) . Anyway, I was wrong, you gradually got through to me, no harm done. A rules dispute is just that; it's a theoretical discussion about a game of toy soldiers ^_^ which I love to play, but it doesn't mean I take arguments personally.

 

If you want to ask an admin to clear our the posts where we were disputing the rule, I have no problem with that.

Or just restart a new one with the rule discussion omitted.

 

Nah, it's ok. Good insurance against other people getting silly ideas about the Monolith, seeing how I failed ;) . Tis getting a bit long though; I hope people are reading the OP when they post. I know I don't on some threads, and it creates a lot of confusion.

 

I really hate how the Living Metal Rule is one of few rules that addresses other special rules, and I think that is just bad form.

 

(shrug) I guess they just wanted to make it space-proof against loopholes and crazy RAW interpretation. In order to convey the 'your weapons are all nub, therefore Living Metal ignores you funky bonus dice' aspect of the rule, they had to talk about said bonuses. I think TBH it would just simpler if they have it a repair rule like the Rhino. Like, any damage result you inflicted, on a 6+ it ignores next turn (if you blow it up, obviously it can't 'repair'), and it gets bonuses for nearby Tomb Spiders (who after all are quite good at repairing damage). Less Deepstriking a giant green tower into enemy lines, more skulkin at the back of Phalanx where my railguns can get you B) . Yeah, and remove it's Deepstrike ability, thats even more retarded than 'Living Metal'.

[GTang]

Monolith's easier to kill with a lucky Lance Strike than a Melta Torpedo.

 

My feeling is that that line would have been moot if they meant it to be treated as an Ordinace Blast weapon in the FAQ. The first sentence alone would have covered the situation. So, I see it as a restriction. This may or may not be the mainstream view.

They said in the FAQ just use the rules for Ordnance Barrage, ignoring the 'Inaccuracy' rule. A poorly-worded explanation of how scatter works (in the FAQ) doesn't change the fact that if you roll a 'hit' on the scatter dice, it stays where it is. Just follow the rule, you're overthinking it.

The FAQ adds that an Orbital Strike is Ordinance Barrage rather than Ordinance Blast. In my opinion, it doesn't really change much of the rest of the codex's rules. Because I can as easily say the part about ignoring 'Inaccuracy' is the poorly-worded part.

 

One one hand, the first sentence in the FAQ says to ignore inaccuracy. On the other hand, the second sentence in the FAQ and the Inaccuracy rule itself describes a substantially similar procedure: 2d6 scatter, no direct hits possible. We know that codexes modify BRB stuff all the time. So, two instances of do it that way, one instance of do it the other way. More randomness is not a game advantage (less isn't either). So, I lean towards no direct hits possible as the 'more restrictive' way of interpreting this part of the rules.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

" Q: How does the Orbital Strike work with the new blast rules?

 

A: Ignore the '(In)accuracy' special rule give in the Codex and treat the attack as an Ordnance Barrage with the 'firer' not having line of sight to the target. The blast marker is therefore placed anywhere in the terrain feature nominated and deviates 2D6" from that point. "

 

pg. 1, Witch-Hunters FAQ 2008

 

The emphasis is mine, I just wanted to demonstrate that GW is simply clarifying how Ordnance Barrage works for you. They state the 'deviates 2D6' part to clarify that you don't reduce the scatter distance because the Inquisitor Lord has BS4 or BS5 or whatever. You can still roll a 'hit' on the scatter dice and the marker stays where it is (as per the Blast Weapon rules, which the Ordnance Barrage rules build on).

[GTang]

Yeah, but BS doesn't matter anyway since you're told the target is out of sight in the first sentence. Under the 'can hit' way of thinking, removing the second sentence doesn't change anything in the FAQ. I think that if they were going to repeat BRB rules for emphasis, they needed to repeat all of that section for us to be certain that this isn't an additional restriction. A sentence saying what happens if you roll a hit is not there, and would be decisive if it was.

 

Remember that the old inaccuracy rule was roll d6", off double it if it's miss, off that d6" if it's rolled as a hit. This sentence on 2d6" rolling is there in the FAQ. Hitting directly is an ability Orbital Strikes didn't have. They would have missed 1"-12" (potentially, miss shots hitting closer than hit shots). Since the FAQ is clarifying rather than rewriting the rules, I believe that changing the die roll and updating Ordinance Blast to Ordinance Barrage may be all that it's doing.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah, but BS doesn't matter anyway since you're told the target is out of sight in the first sentence. Under the 'can hit' way of thinking, removing the second sentence doesn't change anything in the FAQ. I think that if they were going to repeat BRB rules for emphasis, they needed to repeat all of that section for us to be certain that this isn't an additional restriction. A sentence saying what happens if you roll a hit is not there, and would be decisive if it was.

 

Remember that the old inaccuracy rule was roll d6", off double it if it's miss, off that d6" if it's rolled as a hit. This sentence on 2d6" rolling is there in the FAQ. Hitting directly is an ability Orbital Strikes didn't have. They would have missed 1"-12" (potentially, miss shots hitting closer than hit shots). Since the FAQ is clarifying rather than rewriting the rules, I believe that changing the die roll and updating Ordinance Blast to Ordinance Barrage may be all that it's doing.

 

Your over-analysing it man. Just look up the Ordnance Barrage rules in the BRB and follow them. Thats all they meant by the FAQ, as far as I can tell. Yes, it 'therefore it deviates 2D6', but thats a just a clarification of what happens when you roll the arrow (under the rules for Ordnance Barrage). You can still roll a hit (which under the Ordnance Barrage rules = stays put) on the scatter dice.

 

If they wanted to make an exception to the normal rules, their language would've been different. They would've said 'however, it always deviates 2D6, re-roll just the scatter dice (not the two normal dice) if it rolls a hit, to see what direction it MUST scatter' or something.

Using your logic, we'd have to do that, because if you roll a 'hit' on the scatter die it stays put. You can't claim it auto-scatters, because you don't have a direction to scatter it ;) unless you're forced to re-roll the scatter dice to find a direction. GW did not say this however, they merely made a clarification about scatter distance (to emphasise that 'Inaccuracy' is gone and there's no BS modifier applied).

[Tauren]

Technically the hit dice has an arrow that you should follow...

[GTang]

They don't need to say that they're modifying the BRB because the FAQ is modifying something that already modifies the BRB. Like a lot of the rest of the Inquisition codexes, different's more normal than normal. For these Orbital Strikes, the original language in the codex deviated from the old BRB, too. So we both agree that the FAQ is unclearly written on some things. I'm leaning towards the way the codex was before the FAQ as guidance to clarify. Another way is to look towards the current BRB to clarify.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Technically the hit dice has an arrow that you should follow...

 

If you roll the 'hit' facing on the scatter die, the blast marker stays where it is. Thats the rule, as per the BRB :tu:

 

Hence, if you 'always scatter', GW would've said 'if you roll a hit, re-roll the scatter die so you can determine direction', because otherwise (as per the rules) the marker stays where it is.

 

Because they didn't state this, it's safe to assume they just wanted to clarify what you roll for scatter, not that 'it always deviates'. They don't use the phrase 'always deviates' anywhere in the FAQ, it just says 'therefore', implying 'follow the rule, this is what you do, unless you roll a 'hit' on the scatter die'.

 

Just use the Ordnance Barrage rules in the BRB, like GW said to. No need to try to invent rules where none exist :rolleyes:

[Tauren]

There is presendence to use the "hit roll" as a scatter... that's why there is a clear cut little arrow on scatter die for the "hit" marker. But if the faq has cleared up the issue then all's well.