WH/DH Force Weapons: Not Slain Outright?

[GTang]

I've been thinking about this WH/DH Force Weapon thing. And while I'd thought it would not be Instant Death for a while, after reading the rules and thinking about it more, I think they probably are Instant Death along with the rest of the force weapons in 5th edition.

 

Here's my reasoning, for criticism.

 

First, slain outright is not defined in 5th edition. It was in various FAQ and the like in 4th edition. None of those are current. What that means is that this rule does not exist anymore. There's ample precedent for things becoming obsolete in both the WH and DH codexes (e.g. Liber Heresius in WH or Daemonic Infestation in DH). The slain outright section of the force weapon description seems to be obsolete.

 

Next, we do have operative text in the force weapon description on how it could work. Both DH and WH describe them as "power weapon, but can unleash a psychic attack that can kill an opponent outright." (WH p. 21, DH p. 17) Compare this to the description of Instant Death on BRB pg 26. "[a model] is killed outright and removed as a casulaty." "Kill an opponent outright" and "killed outright" are equivalent - while the sentences are structurally different the damages is both defined the same.

 

So, from this, I reluctantly conclude that both the DH and WH force weapons cause Instant Death, and should be played as causing Instant Death in 5th edition.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[rat of vengence]

First, slain outright is not defined in 5th edition.

I think the phrase is pretty clear, it does not need 'defining'. Slain outright was never a 'special rule' that needed defining in the first place.

 

Unless they use the term 'Instant Death', which many opponents may be immune to, then it is not 'Instant Death'. They are not immune to being 'slain outright'.

 

At least, that's what I reckon. :P

 

RoV

[bystrom]

By your own reasoning, WH/DH force weapons don't inflict instant death. As you've argued, they both 'kill outright', which tells us they work the same. The difference is that one is called Instant Death and is something models are immune to while the other is part of the description of force weapons in the codicies.

[avatar8481]

If only GW knew how to write real rule systems and keep them up to date...or was at all interested in doing that.

[OwlandMoonGuy]

What are your thoughts on this?

This is just a sad example of how a rudimentary understanding of the English language is somehow insufficient for interpreting game rules. Since the terms are discrete we can’t therefore assume that they should apply to the same rule. So the common sense approach has merit and should be applauded but ultimately fails us in these cases.

 

Since the terms found in the DH & WH rules were written prior to the 5th Edition USR’s we are left with the exceptions brought about by the discrepancies. In other words, since GW is adverse to revising older rules for the sake of playability we’re left with generations of incompatible rules and a constant game of catch-up that never ends.

 

So when will WH/DH get brought up to the same standards as the rest of the game? Just in time for 6th Edition to invalidate the rules employed in the more updated codices today.

 

Does this sound like madness to you? If so rest assured that your own sanity is intact.

 

</rant> With my apologies. Carry on, -OMG

[veidin]

All I know is that Adepticon FAQ for DH states that DH force weapons "slay outright" therefor bypassing the immunity to double str and immortal warrior rules. I trust Adepticon tourney rule FAQ's and will use those. :P

 

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv2.2.pdf Page 32

[GTang]

First, slain outright is not defined in 5th edition.

I think the phrase is pretty clear, it does not need 'defining'. Slain outright was never a 'special rule' that needed defining in the first place.

The problem is, this isn't so - "slain outright" was defined by 4th edition FAQ as the 4th edition force weapon rules were all "slain outright" items. Those FAQ are gone. So, the definition is gone with the old edition. And when that happens, what we normally do is say that the state vanished with the rules. Instead, what we seem to be choosing to do here is to refer to obsolete rules that are not part of the set anymore to justify playing with the old rule.

 

Yet even ignoring that phrase, the Force Weapon description has enough text within it to have it function sensibly in 5th edition. Coincidentally, in the same way as the other Force Weapons around nowadays.

[veidin]

One of largest tournaments for Warhammer says you're wrong Ill relink the FAQ once more since you must of ignored it. If a tournament of that size and caliber says it slays outright Id be inclined to press thats the rule that should be followed since GW enforces it. You can of course house rule it, but sadly if I played you and you said my GM's force weapon doesnt slay outright then Id argue that my storm shields should follow the SM codex's shields and confer me a 3+ inv save as opposed to the 4+ in CC against a single opponent. :D

 

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv2.2.pdf Page 32

[SeattleDV8]

In that the DH codex has a complete listing on how the force weapons work , we must follow those rules.

Other wise you must also upgrade all of the other items that have the same name but different rules.

ie Storm shields, smoke launchers, psychic hoods,combat shields , assault cannons and so on.

The DH force weapons 'slay outright' which is not 'Instant Death'.

[JamesI]

One of largest tournaments for Warhammer says you're wrong Ill relink the FAQ once more since you must of ignored it. If a tournament of that size and caliber says it slays outright Id be inclined to press thats the rule that should be followed since GW enforces it. You can of course house rule it, but sadly if I played you and you said my GM's force weapon doesnt slay outright then Id argue that my storm shields should follow the SM codex's shields and confer me a 3+ inv save as opposed to the 4+ in CC against a single opponent. :P

 

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv2.2.pdf Page 32

Adepticon's FAQ is not an official rules source. They're right in this case, the force weapon gets around Eternal Warrior/Synapse.

[Kurasuke]

C:DH and WH were released in the 3rd edition. The 3rd edition rulebook didn't actually have special rules for force weapons at all.

[veidin]

Im aware that Adepticon isnt official I simply was stating if a mass tournament of that size rules it that way perhaps just MAYBE that's how it's meant to be played. Damn people nit pick everything here dont they? :devil:

[GTang]

Tournaments are free to violate rules as needed. For example, a lot of them made up different rules for kill points back when the IG codex hadn't been updated.

 

"Slain outright" would have meant the same thing as "remove the model from the board" today, if there were a FAQ or some other official ruling saying this is what it meant. But as it stands currently, there isn't anything that defines it or is directly equivalent. So, we should feel forced to set aside that part of the rule as ambiguous.

 

To make an analogy, that's like saying Rites of Battle still work because demonic instability existed in 4th edition. The words are still in the DH codex. And because of that, we should still play with it in 5th edition. Saying codex > rules doesn't fix that; the correct thing to do is to eliminate it as non-functional.

 

I think the burden is to show where "slain outright" is given in 5th edition. If it's not, it can't be played. And I don't think 4th edition rules can be used to define it.

 

And not only that, WH and DH force weapons work fine without that sentence containing slain outright. The remainder of the wargear description says it's what Instant Death is, even if it doesn't say the words Instant Death.

[jeffersonian000]

The issue is the Instant Death is a defined quality that has a defined counter, Eternal Warrior. Both qualities did not exist at the time the 'Hunter 'Dexes written, yet are defined now in 5th Ed. As neither the Daemonhunter nor Witch Hunter force weapon description includes the quality known as Instant Death, yet both involve killing a target with multiple wounds if single wound is scored and the psychic save is made, Eternal Warrior does not apply as it specifically works against Instant Death.

 

No matter how we look at it, Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter force weapons do not cause "Instant Death" per their rules and per the 5th Ed ruling that a codex will supersede the rulebook in any case where a rule is stated differently. This means that in the end, Inquisitorial force weapons will kill an Eternal Warrior outright, while a non-inquisitorial force weapon will not.

 

SJ

[mega_marines]

Simply put, disregarding all else: Eternal Warrior did not exist at all when the books were created. Now, RAW(Rules As Written) would clarify Inquisitional Force Weapons cause "Slain Outright", not Instant Death. On the other hand, RAI(Rules as Intended) would heavily signify ALL Force Weapons, no matter which book, cause Instant Death. If I were still store manager, I'd ask a player who intended to use the RAW version of this rule to kindly leave or use Rules As Intended. Mind you I was a GW Blackshirt...

 

Many will argue against this, but let them. If you're playing 40k for fun as a "fun gamer"; which it should always be done as, tournaments included; your Force Weapons will always cause Instant Death. If you're playing as a "power gamer", you'll be using the old 'Slain Outright" rule. Be the first, not the latter. You'll enjoy the game a whole lot more, and people will want to play you more.

[SeattleDV8]

Is a 'fun' game having all the down sides of an older Codex and not allowed the one bright spot in it?

Bullying a player because he wishes to play by the rules doesn't sound like fun to me.

I somehow find the idea that a 'power gamer' would be playing a DH list a bit..silly.

Would you also force a DH player to put a 24" range on his psychic hood?

BRB pg. 62 "It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have sightly different rules.As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence."

The ability to 'slay outright' was known and approved in 4th Ed FAQ's when many models were immune to instant death, the fact that the DH force weapons are not changed by FAQ implies strongly that they work the same as they did then.

The idea that this issue just came up in 5th ed doesn't hold water.

[rat of vengence]

As I said earlier, slain outright needs defining? I would have thought it could fit in the "Bleedin' Obvious" category...

 

Slain outright slays the opponent... outright. No mention of Instant Death at all. You can't 'set aside' parts of the rule you don't like/agree with, it's as bad as calling inconvenient bits of rule 'fluff', which is happening a lot these days.

 

RoV

[OwlandMoonGuy]

Im aware that Adepticon isnt official I simply was stating if a mass tournament of that size rules it that way perhaps just MAYBE that's how it's meant to be played. Damn people nit pick everything here dont they? B)

Slightly OT: It’s really not a question of nit-picking it’s an issue with the source of the ruling. Official comes from GW and that’s it. Everything else is house rules.

 

The INAT FAQ is endorsed by Adepticon but personally I'd never use it when running tournaments. Yackface does a very thorough job but then takes it a step farther by adding new rules where he believes gaps exist and even changing official rules if he feels that they're, "absurd, unfun, or goes against the style of the vast majority of [how] people play." Again to his credit at least he’s very explicit when doing so.

 

Arguing a ruling from the INAT FAQ is fine and yet it’s not nit-picking to keep it in the unofficial standing that it holds.

 

-OMG

[veidin]

I see what you're saying but again it was a point of reference nothing more. It was criticized therefor by definition it was nitpicked.

 

That being said however I agree GW is the official and as such GW states codex always comes before the rulebook. As such, DH/WH force weapons slay outright and do not cause instant death. There should be no argument here aside from the complaints of GW not updating codexes etc.

 

"Simply put, disregarding all else: Eternal Warrior did not exist at all when the books were created. Now, RAW(Rules As Written) would clarify Inquisitional Force Weapons cause "Slain Outright", not Instant Death. On the other hand, RAI(Rules as Intended) would heavily signify ALL Force Weapons, no matter which book, cause Instant Death. If I were still store manager, I'd ask a player who intended to use the RAW version of this rule to kindly leave or use Rules As Intended. Mind you I was a GW Blackshirt..."

 

Sadly Id say you are going against the very company you would be working for as they state the above that codexes overrule rulebook. RAI is an opinion as opposed to factual and for me as a DH player my intended reading is that it slays outright. Why does your RAI outweigh mine simply because you wear a black shirt and are arguing against the companies viewpoint?

 

Again if we simply based everything off RAI etc then I feel that GW "intended" to allow the rest of my gear function as other codexes allow, ie. storm shields. Why hamper a codex due to its outdatedness but not allow the subpar equipment to be used in an updated manner as well?

[mega_marines]

Again if we simply based everything off RAI etc then I feel that GW "intended" to allow the rest of my gear function as other codexes allow, ie. storm shields. Why hamper a codex due to its outdatedness but not allow the subpar equipment to be used in an updated manner as well?

 

I'm going to say this, the "table-rules" of Games Workshop are carried by a general consensus of stores/majority vote, not each and every staff memeber. The situation of RAI is purely conditional. This much should be blatantly obvious. Storm Shields, Smoke Launchers, and Psychic Hoods remain the way they are in the codex because they are clearly defined with no room for debate. The issue with the Force Weapons is that in 4th Edition it carried controversy, and in 5th Ed, that very same controversy carried over with just more units being thrown into the mix. The only problem now, the version of Instant Death now has name. It's called Eternal Warrior. As stated before, this debate will always continue until the Codices are redone simply because everyone will have a different interpretation. I have stated my opinion, and my stores opinion on it. The reason I made my comment about a player attempting to use RAW over RAI for the Force Weapon is simply because each Games Workshop store carries a set of "House Rules". No store will publicly say the have their own House Rules, because some believe their own ideas; if agreed on by a small multiple of serving staff and players; are how the book works while other stores will have that same thought-process and have different rule opinions. You don't like how a store views the rules? Well either convince everyone there how the rules work differently, find a way to get along like the other players in the store, or please find another store. Even I play DH and WH and I play them how my store does. If another store asks me to play with their rulings, I do so.

 

 

 

Is a 'fun' game having all the down sides of an older Codex and not allowed the one bright spot in it?

Bullying a player because he wishes to play by the rules doesn't sound like fun to me.

I somehow find the idea that a 'power gamer' would be playing a DH list a bit..silly.

Would you also force a DH player to put a 24" range on his psychic hood?

BRB pg. 62 "It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have sightly different rules.As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence."

The ability to 'slay outright' was known and approved in 4th Ed FAQ's when many models were immune to instant death, the fact that the DH force weapons are not changed by FAQ implies strongly that they work the same as they did then.

The idea that this issue just came up in 5th ed doesn't hold water.

 

Please read my above statement. Also, an army should always be played by how it is written in the Codex and amended by the FAQ's, no matter how old. if you choose to play an army you know is outdated, why complain about it? You most likely chose to place yourself in that situation. And to assume a player who plays DH or WH can't be a power gamer is a gross statement. You can "power-game" with any Codex, no matter the age. I've seen the Dual Lash and Nine Obliterator list get crushed by a Demon Hunters list(Which if looked through, was bred for tournaments), and both players were known as "Store Veteran Gamers" and "Rules Lawyers" by all definitions. Do also note that your statement about 4th Edition FAQ holds no water in 5th Edition. If I bring up a 3rd Edition FAQ for an army in the middle of a game that's being played in 5th Edition, I wouldn't be allowed to use it. The FAQ's posted removed old rulings because of a new edition being present. If you noticed, each FAQ is now for 5th Edition, not 4th.

 

Note: Edited for Typing Errors! :(

[veidin]

Also, an army should always be played by how it is written in the Codex and amended by the FAQ's, no matter how old. if you choose to play an army you know is outdated, why complain about it?

 

Is that not contradictory to what you said about house ruling the Force weapons? It was not amended via FAQ's and as you stated it should be played as written no matter how old. It is written in the codex to slay outright, which you argue is wrong via RAI, yet you say that the armies should be played as written in the Codex?

 

Kinda talking circles on this and sounds more like you just dont like it so you house rule it your own way, which isnt the debate here. I can houserule that jump packs make my dudes fly 100 inches because I have special promethium injected differentiators attached to servo-fluxers with mass hyper ion projection stream boosters, because that's how I intend jump packs to be. The debate here is how it should be ruled overall, not a personal level which as the codex states.....slain outright.....unless equipped with the above jump pack :wub:

[mega_marines]

Also, an army should always be played by how it is written in the Codex and amended by the FAQ's, no matter how old. if you choose to play an army you know is outdated, why complain about it?

 

Is that not contradictory to what you said about house ruling the Force weapons? It is written in the codex to slay outright, which you argue is wrong via RAI. Yet you say that the armies should be played as written in the Codex? Cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

You can if you take definitions for what they simply are.

I'll be blunt and say it: In the 4th Edition Rule Book, Force Weapons had a note stating they "Slayed Outright" when you compared it the qualities of Instant Death. Now, we are in 5th Edition, where it doesn't even have a mention in the codex save for "Force Weapons" where ALL Force Weapons cause Instant Death. It's out of date wargear that must follow the new rulebook in accordance. The other reason other gear stays with the codex is because GW made specific notes stating it does. Nowhere did it mention the Force Weapons, therefore, by logic, they must be change with the times. Unless it is specifically mentioned, it changes with each Edition.

 

And I've said it before, but you continue to choose to disregard it. Other people will always have different interpretations of the rules than you do. What will make perfect sense and be normal to you will not always fall in line with what others think. This sometimes falls under the category of common sense, and other times it falls under something obscure. Do note that sometimes those two categories can be hard to utilize since we play a game of "Advanced Toy Soldiers".

[Vivaldi]

''you choose to play an army you know is outdated, why complain about it? You most likely chose to place yourself in that situation''

 

Because, you know,we all have 2+ armies! And its not like anyone who started playing the game while DH WAS up to date is still playing his/her DH now, am I right.

 

In other news, I would say (in RAI mode) it works as a Force Weapon per new rules, however, considering the DA storm shield precedent, Codex> All.

 

Fluff wise.... why does gimmick war gear that convert 'eternal warrior' (ie. some cloack) make you immume to force weapons anyway?

 

Cheers

 

EDIT: I can haz spelling

[SeattleDV8]

You can if you take definitions for what they simply are.

I'll be blunt and say it: In the 4th Edition Rule Book, Force Weapons had a note stating they "Slayed Outright" when you compared it the qualities of Instant Death. Now, we are in 5th Edition, where it doesn't even have a mention in the codex save for "Force Weapons" where ALL Force Weapons cause Instant Death. It's out of date wargear that must follow the new rulebook in accordance. The other reason other gear stays with the codex is because GW made specific notes stating it does. Nowhere did it mention the Force Weapons, therefore, by logic, they must be change with the times. Unless it is specifically mentioned, it changes with each Edition.

That is incorrect, again look at the ruling for smoke launchers.

It tells us where the Codex rules are different from the BRB the "Codex takes precedence".

Not all force weapons are the same.

If 'out of date' wargear has rules for it's use it's not out of date is it.

If the Codex refers to rules that no longer exist of course we ignore that, but the DH's and BRB's rules are clear on this issue.

[mega_marines]

''you choose to play an army you know is outdated, why complain about it? You most likely chose to place yourself in that situation''

 

Because, you know,we all have 2+ armies! And its not like anyone who started playing the game while DH WAS up to date is still playing his/her DH now, am I right.

 

In other news, I would say (in RAI mode) it works as a Force Weapon per new rules, however, considering the DA storm shield precedent, Codex> All.

 

Fluff wise.... why do gimmick war gear that conver 'eternal warrior' (ie. some cloack) make you immume to force weapons anyway?

 

Cheers

 

The reason I mentioned behind it is simply this: Research an army before you decided to play it. If it's outdated and you don't like it, move on, or proxy the models for a different army. If you from a prior edition, and you want to continue, buck up and use 'em. If you love your army enough, you'll be adult enough to accept a challenge and use them.

 

I do appreciate you understanding where I am coming from. My only argument against it though is that Storm Shields were talked about by GW as one of the few items remaining undisturbed in their codex. The Force Weapons they have, were not. Personal feeligns though, as well as personal interpretations of the rules.

 

Fluff-Wise: Like He'Stans cloak? A pathetic excuse could be that if a blade pierces it, the material used in it nullfies Psychic power/abilities while it's also durable enough to take a Lascannon blast and simply push the wearer back a few steps in a burst of dilluted pain. Realisim applied, I doubt there is any reason unless it's psychic powers, insanely durable armor, or the mental and physical fortitude of a God.

 

 

That is incorrect, again look at the ruling for smoke launchers.

It tells us where the Codex rules are different from the BRB the "Codex takes precedence".

Not all force weapons are the same.

If 'out of date' wargear has rules for it's use it's not out of date is it.

If the Codex refers to rules that no longer exist of course we ignore that, but the DH's and BRB's rules are clear on this issue.

 

 

Remember how I said RAI is circumstancial?

And remember DIFFERENT RULES INTERPRETATIONS?

And if out of date wargear still has rules, explain the DH and WH psychic abilities which affect "Instability checks", a rule no longer used. The powers are still usable, are they not? If that's the logic you're applying, then you're pushing yourself in a corner. By my definition, and other members of this board, ALL Force Weapons cause Instant Death simply by applying our version of common sense. By your definition, and other members of this board, those SPECIFIC Force Weapons do not cause Intstant Death, but still Slay Outright by your variation of common sense. See why Different Interpretations will always lead to conflicts? In all ideals, we won't be agreeing on this matter because we both have proof of our claims, though they contradict one another. The best we can do is agree to disagree.

 

Pardon me, double tapped....I must have been within 12"

 

I just spat coffee out of my mouth laughing from that. And it's on my screen too! Jerk..... :lol: