How Blood Lance works?

[breng77]

it has no direction per se - it's a damn line placed like a template. Cover is directional. I place a line on your model, which side of the wall do you take cover on?

 

Templates have direction in that they have a point of origin. The reason they ignore cover has nothing to do with directionality and everything to do with the game telling you that they don't allow cover. BL does not do this. Furthermore it has directionality in that it tells you to extend a line from the Librarian, which indicates that it comes from the Librarian. Appaih it seems as though you want to say that no shooting rules apply to Blood Lance simply because it does not roll to hit.

 

1.) It needs LOS (or we can safely assume that given that JAWS does and it is the closest analog to BL), it does not specifically say it ignores LOS therefore it cannot be assumed that it does (permissive rule set = unless the rules say something occurs it does not occur).

 

2.) IT gives cover, it is a psychic shooting attack that causes wounds, per the FAQ that means it grants cover. Unless you can site an exception that does causes it not to grant cover it does.

[Squirrelloid]

it has no direction per se - it's a damn line placed like a template. Cover is directional. I place a line on your model, which side of the wall do you take cover on?

 

Templates have direction in that they have a point of origin. The reason they ignore cover has nothing to do with directionality and everything to do with the game telling you that they don't allow cover. BL does not do this. Furthermore it has directionality in that it tells you to extend a line from the Librarian, which indicates that it comes from the Librarian. Appaih it seems as though you want to say that no shooting rules apply to Blood Lance simply because it does not roll to hit.

 

1.) It needs LOS (or we can safely assume that given that JAWS does and it is the closest analog to BL), it does not specifically say it ignores LOS therefore it cannot be assumed that it does (permissive rule set = unless the rules say something occurs it does not occur).

 

2.) IT gives cover, it is a psychic shooting attack that causes wounds, per the FAQ that means it grants cover. Unless you can site an exception that does causes it not to grant cover it does.

 

I grant cover is allowed and the point of origin is the librarian, but 1 is nowhere in evidence.

 

(1) GW clearly knows how to write FAQs to cover whether LoS is needed in this type of case. If they had intended BL to check LoS, they would have written the rules so it did, or errataed/FAQed it to do so like they did with JotWW. Its not like there isn't a current FAQ for BA, nor is it like the FAQ totally ignores BL as a power.

 

(2) It does specifically ignore LoS. Extend a line from the librarian. All touched units are hit. None of that involves checking line of sight. You have a complete procedure for determining which units hits are allocated to without checking LoS.

 

(3) Its not clear what you would measure Line of Sight to. It doesn't declare a target. Indeed, the FAQ creates rules for determining who you can charge because the existing rules don't cover that - ie, GW is explicitly acknowledging BL does not take a target, and is erecting a separate rule to cover permitted charges in this case. This is important because the rules only allow and require you to check line of sight to your target. As the librarian has no target, he has nothing to check LoS to.

[breng77]

(1) GW clearly knows how to write FAQs to cover whether LoS is needed in this type of case. If they had intended BL to check LoS, they would have written the rules so it did, or errataed/FAQed it to do so like they did with JotWW. Its not like there isn't a current FAQ for BA, nor is it like the FAQ totally ignores BL as a power.

 

They do? It seems to me that it is just as likely that due to the JAWS ruling people may not have asked and therefore GW did not answer. It comes down to do you think GW is preemptive with its FAQs or do they react to questions asked. They certainly seem to miss a lot of questions, so I think it is just as likely that this one was missed.

 

(2) It does specifically ignore LoS. Extend a line from the librarian. All touched units are hit. None of that involves checking line of sight. You have a complete procedure for determining which units hits are allocated to without checking LoS.

 

NOwhere in that does it say that it ignores LOS, that is an assumption, it is far more likely that it need LOS as other shooting attacks do (just for reference template weapons do not specify that they need LOS, unless I missed something) unless it is specified that it ignores LOS it does not. THe rules of this game tell you how things function and then if there is an exception it is specifically stated.

 

(3) Its not clear what you would measure Line of Sight to. It doesn't declare a target. Indeed, the FAQ creates rules for determining who you can charge because the existing rules don't cover that - ie, GW is explicitly acknowledging BL does not take a target, and is erecting a separate rule to cover permitted charges in this case. This is important because the rules only allow and require you to check line of sight to your target. As the librarian has no target, he has nothing to check LoS to.

 

it is a fairly safe assumption that the assaulting FAQ is indicating that the first unit in line is the target and thus needs los, as it is with JAWS. Making this unit the "target" would fit nicely with it being the unit you can assault.

[angry man]

emphasis mine

<snip>

(2) It does specifically ignore LoS. Extend a line from the librarian. All touched units are hit. None of that involves checking line of sight. You have a complete procedure for determining which units hits are allocated to without checking LoS.

 

NOwhere in that does it say that it ignores LOS, that is an assumption, it is far more likely that it need LOS as other shooting attacks do (just for reference template weapons do not specify that they need LOS, unless I missed something) unless it is specified that it ignores LOS it does not. THe rules of this game tell you how things function and then if there is an exception it is specifically stated.

emphasis mine

(3) Its not clear what you would measure Line of Sight to. It doesn't declare a target. Indeed, the FAQ creates rules for determining who you can charge because the existing rules don't cover that - ie, GW is explicitly acknowledging BL does not take a target, and is erecting a separate rule to cover permitted charges in this case. This is important because the rules only allow and require you to check line of sight to your target. As the librarian has no target, he has nothing to check LoS to.

 

it is a fairly safe assumption that the assaulting FAQ is indicating that the first unit in line is the target and thus needs los, as it is with JAWS. Making this unit the "target" would fit nicely with it being the unit you can assault.

you cant really argue against someones point on the basis that it is an assumption, and then make your own case, stating something as an assumption... :)

 

the rules for template weapons specify: (emphasis mine)

instead of rolling to hit, instead place the template so that the narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit...

there must be a target unit

 

 

this shows us that you do need to have line of sight in order to use a template weapon:

in order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing model must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit...

 

however, in the rules for BL, as far as i know, there is no mention of a target unit and therefore i believe LOS is not required. whilst BL is clearly a psychic shooting attack, and therefore must follow the normal rules for shooting, the wording of the power simply state to draw a line, overriding the 'selecting of a target'. This would be reinforced by the FAQ stating that the first unit on the line is the one that can be charged - there is no target unit for BL. if there is no target unit, there is no need for LOS

 

AM

[Frosty the Pyro]

Squirrel you are wrong.

 

Lets go over the basics.

 

In order to shoot something you must in this order (as per pg 15 of the BrB)

 

1.Declare target and check LOS

2.Check range

3. roll to hit

4. roll to wound

5. take saving throws

6. remove casulties

 

Blood lance rules changes 2 via its 4d6 range and 3 the roll to hit (via automatic hits of enemies under the line) but does not change step 1 or step 5 in any way.

 

 

saving throws can be taken against Anything that causes wounds unless specificly denied by the weapon/power/damage source. Aditionaly cover (unless otehrwise specified by the weapon, such as wth barrage attacks) is drawn from all models in the effected unit to the firing model, regardless of LOS (for example if a blast weapon scatters to a target out of LOS onto a target other than the declared one), so even if you are hitting a unit that wasnt the target without LOS to said unit you still determine cover and they can still take cover saves based the postion of the model shooting (ie the librairan) and the unit/units behing hit.

[breng77]

you cant really argue against someones point on the basis that it is an assumption, and then make your own case, stating something as an assumption...

 

the rules for template weapons specify: (emphasis mine)

 

except I am more arguing that it is not clear in either direction. I feel that it needs LOS but there is no rule evidence on either side to support it.

 

There is not "mention of a target" in the JAWS rules either and yet the FAQ states that there is one. Lack of a target does not remove the need for LOS, nor does having a target imply the need for LOS. Barrage weapons have a target and don't need LOS (which is specifically stated in the rules). All I am saying is that it is a safer assumption to assume that you need LOS than that you don't as it is a psychic shooting attack, and in the rules for those attacks it requires LOS, this is the only rules evidence on either side. Stating that it does not say you need LOS, is the same as me arguing that a template does not need LOS (as it does not specifically say I do, and target, based on barrage weapons does not always indicate LOS, there are other targeted pychic powers that don't need LOS as well).

[angry man]

There is not "mention of a target" in the JAWS rules either and yet the FAQ states that there is one.

it is the FAQ that means jaws requires LoS - without the FAQ we would be in the same situation as BL. BL is not Jaws

 

Lack of a target does not remove the need for LOS, nor does having a target imply the need for LOS.

the only mention i can find for LoS is the quote in my previous post - it clearly links target units and LoS

 

Barrage weapons have a target and don't need LOS (which is specifically stated in the rules).

as you state - a clearly explained exception to the normal rules

 

Stating that it does not say you need LOS, is the same as me arguing that a template does not need LOS (as it does not specifically say I do, and target, based on barrage weapons does not always indicate LOS, there are other targeted pychic powers that don't need LOS as well).

the rules for barrage and template weapons are clearly explained. my previous post shows that templates clearly do need LoS

 

 

1.Declare target and check LOS

2.Check range

3. roll to hit

4. roll to wound

5. take saving throws

6. remove casulties

 

Blood lance rules changes 2 via its 4d6 range and 3 the roll to hit (via automatic hits of enemies under the line) but does not change step 1 or step 5 in any way.

Extend a straight line, 4D6" long, from the Librarian's base in any direction

i think it can be argued that the instructions for BL override step1.

 

AM

[breng77]

Except you are missing the point both sides can be argued and thus it needs an FAQ, yest JAWS is not BL, but it is the closest analog to BL and IMO should be used in determing how BL works. Yes there is no FAQ saying BL has x as its target, and needs LOS, but as I stated before maybe because of JAWS the question did not get asked frequently enough to warrant being in a Frequently asked questions section. GWs FAQs are not comprehensive of all of the rules issues in 40k. IF it were your argument about BL lacking an FAQ would hold more water. However, lack of a rule does not create a rule. I would argue that lack of the statement LOS is not required, indicates that BL follows all rules for psychic shooting attacks except those that are specified (the roll to hit). Furthermore as it says you must charge the first unit in the line if you charge I would argue that the first unit becomes the default "target" for Blood lance, and so you would draw LOS to that unit.

 

That said there is not enough definitive support for either side of this argument in the RAW. However, the act of Drawing a line clearly(see JAWS) does not always indicate that you don't need LOS, therefore through proof by contradiction I can say that drawing a line does not = not needing LOS. That does not mean it cannot be the case simply that it is not always the case. Hence the need for clarification. That sai I would be surprised if GW ruled on the no LOS, no cover saves line, as I think most people play that it needs LOS and grants cover (at least everyone I have ever seen use it, which is really not all that many people as it is one of the weaker powers in the BA book.)

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrel you are wrong.

 

Lets go over the basics.

 

In order to shoot something you must in this order (as per pg 15 of the BrB)

 

1.Declare target and check LOS

2.Check range

3. roll to hit

4. roll to wound

5. take saving throws

6. remove casulties

 

Blood lance rules changes 2 via its 4d6 range and 3 the roll to hit (via automatic hits of enemies under the line) but does not change step 1 or step 5 in any way.

 

 

saving throws can be taken against Anything that causes wounds unless specificly denied by the weapon/power/damage source. Aditionaly cover (unless otehrwise specified by the weapon, such as wth barrage attacks) is drawn from all models in the effected unit to the firing model, regardless of LOS (for example if a blast weapon scatters to a target out of LOS onto a target other than the declared one), so even if you are hitting a unit that wasnt the target without LOS to said unit you still determine cover and they can still take cover saves based the postion of the model shooting (ie the librairan) and the unit/units behing hit.

 

BL never declares a target, and so has nothing to check LoS to. It clearly changes 1.

 

You start by extending a line from the librarian. *In any direction*. No target is declared for the line to be extended towards.

 

GW concurs that there is no target. From the BA FAQ:

"Q: Blood Lance is a psychic shooting attack that can hit multiple units. If the librarian wishes to assault after using Blood Lance, which unit(s) is he permitted to assault?"

"A: Only the first unit hit by Blood Lance."

 

If Blood Lance took a target, then the answer would be 'the librarian's target'. They wouldn't need to specify alternate rules for determining which unit could be assaulted.

 

I should also note that, in response to a similar question in the SW FAQ, JotWW specifically says it takes the unit of the first model affected as its *target*. Language which is notably absent here. GW clearly believes BL works differently than JotWW or they would have answered similar questions in identical fashions. At which point none of the JotWW FAQs can be taken as setting precedent for BL, because we have notable differences in their operation - both in their codex rules (JotWW affects models, not units, does not cause wounds) and in their FAQ answers (JotWW has a target, BL does not).

 

Further, we need no help beyond the existing FAQ to determine how BL works. The rules in the codex plus the clarification on who the librarian can assault are a complete procedure. As there is no problems actually following those rules, why do we even need to look elsewhere to figure out how it works? There's no need to add additional rules beyond those specified. Ergo, adding any such rules (like needing LoS) is clearly not within the scope of the actual rules as provided to us.

[Grey Mage]

No, because GW has a history of not answering questions in identical fashions but expecting them to work in identical manners- and this includes printing nearly identical rules for the same weapon or peice of wargear in different codices with only minor changes to the wording.... that dont affect anything.

 

Blood Lance targets the first unit it hits, otherwise there wouldnt be a charging restriction on it.

[Squirrelloid]

No, because GW has a history of not answering questions in identical fashions but expecting them to work in identical manners- and this includes printing nearly identical rules for the same weapon or peice of wargear in different codices with only minor changes to the wording.... that dont affect anything.

 

Blood Lance targets the first unit it hits, otherwise there wouldnt be a charging restriction on it.

 

Then why don't they say that.

 

Referring to the canons from The Rules Lawyers site, the following are all that seem to apply:

 

Plain Language Canon: They mean what they say. They don't mean what they don't say. The rules never refer to the first unit as the target, nor do they ever require line of sight to it.

 

Superfluous language canon: There's no reason to require the librarian to need to assault the first unit hit if it was his target. That requirement would follow automatically.

 

The inclusion/exclusion canon: They included language about target and LoS for JotWW's FAQ, but not BL's. When they include language in one place but not in another, they do so for a reason. They intend for them to work differently.

 

Occam's Razor canon: Assuming BL works exactly as it says requires fewer assumptions than assuming it requires interpolation of a FAQ for another codex about another power entirely applies. BL not taking a target is the simpler explanation. (Seriously, there's no reason a BA player should need to read the SW FAQ to know how to use their codex).

 

Permissive Ruleset Canon: Rules never tell you that you can check LoS to the first unit, therefore you're not even allowed to do so. They never tell you that said unit is your target, so it isn't.

[Quixus]

Additionally selecting a target actually contradicts the RAW of the power:

Extend a straight line, 4D6'' long, from the Librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by the Blood Lance.

"In any direction" also includes directions where there are no models in the line's path. If you had to select a target, such directions would be forbidden as you don't shoot at the target in that case.

 

The same logic applies to the requirement for LOS. If you needed LOS, you could not place the line in any direction.

 

Lastly if you needed to select a target, it would create the same problem as with flamer templates in case the template/line does not reach the selected target.

[breng77]

Plain Language Canon: They mean what they say. They don't mean what they don't say. The rules never refer to the first unit as the target, nor do they ever require line of sight to it.

 

Which cannot be applied to GW they don't always mean what they say or don't mean what they don't say, the rules for psychic shooting attacks refer to targets so they may not have felt the need to include it in the rules (it is not specifically included in any other psychic shooting attack.)

 

Superfluous language canon: There's no reason to require the librarian to need to assault the first unit hit if it was his target. That requirement would follow automatically.

 

But because the attack can effect multiple units clarifying this is needed, but would have been clearer if it stated that the unit was the target, as it does not resolve this question if the libby is in a unit which effected unit does his unit need to fire at.

 

The inclusion/exclusion canon: They included language about target and LoS for JotWW's FAQ, but not BL's. When they include language in one place but not in another, they do so for a reason. They intend for them to work differently.

 

They don't always put language in ever FAQ, on top of which perhaps due to the JAWS FAQ this question was never really asked.

 

Occam's Razor canon: Assuming BL works exactly as it says requires fewer assumptions than assuming it requires interpolation of a FAQ for another codex about another power entirely applies. BL not taking a target is the simpler explanation. (Seriously, there's no reason a BA player should need to read the SW FAQ to know how to use their codex).

 

Assuming BL functions like all other psychic shooting attacks except when noted is far close to the easiest explanation rather than assuming things found nowhere in the 40k rule set.

 

Permissive Ruleset Canon: Rules never tell you that you can check LoS to the first unit, therefore you're not even allowed to do so. They never tell you that said unit is your target, so it isn't.

 

Blood Lance is a shooting attack the brb gives you permission to check LOS for all shooting attacks, therefore you are allowed to do so, the same holds true for selecting a target. this argument fails, the rule set never says you ignore LOS and that you don't need a target, therefore you do. This argument is at least equally valid.

 

"In any direction" also includes directions where there are no models in the line's path. If you had to select a target, such directions would be forbidden as you don't shoot at the target in that case.

 

Maybe GW intended for this to mean that you did not need to worry about model facing with dreads, or other models in the unit with the libby, and assumed no one would use the power with no "target" in mind.

 

Lastly if you needed to select a target, it would create the same problem as with flamer templates in case the template/line does not reach the selected target.

 

what problem, all shooting attacks allow you to target units beyond your range, if the target is out of range you miss.

[Quixus]

Maybe GW intended for this to mean that you did not need to worry about model facing with dreads, or other models in the unit with the libby, and assumed no one would use the power with no "target" in mind.

Now you put words into GW's mouth. Any means any. If they meant it to mean any direction that maybe (because at that point we do not yet have a range) crosses a model in the targeted unit, they would have had to write that. Any direction has no such restriction, and it is agreed that specific overrides general.

 

what problem, all shooting attacks allow you to target units beyond your range, if the target is out of range you miss.

Yes, you miss the targeted unit, because you are not allowed to roll to hit, but you still fire and there is some disagreement what happens to "any model that is under the template/line suffers a hit."

 

BTW does the FAQ on who you can charge create an impossibility to charge for the Librarian and the unit he is attached to? What happens if there are two enemy units in front of the Librarian and his unit if the lance crosses both units? What happens if the unit successfully shoots at the unit in the back but the lance's range does not reach the targeted unit?

[Squirrelloid]

Plain Language Canon: They mean what they say. They don't mean what they don't say. The rules never refer to the first unit as the target, nor do they ever require line of sight to it.

 

Which cannot be applied to GW they don't always mean what they say or don't mean what they don't say, the rules for psychic shooting attacks refer to targets so they may not have felt the need to include it in the rules (it is not specifically included in any other psychic shooting attack.)

 

The position that we should just make up what we think GW meant is untenable. Either they say to do something or they don't. If they don't say to do something, we shouldn't pretend they did. That way lies madness, and we'll never agree on how to play the game.

 

Ie, your argument is equivalent to 'there is no rules'. That argument can be rejected out of hand. If they haven't said what they mean, well, we only have what they said to go by. What they actually mean is irrelevant. We have to assume that what they've said is what they've meant.

 

Superfluous language canon: There's no reason to require the librarian to need to assault the first unit hit if it was his target. That requirement would follow automatically.

 

But because the attack can effect multiple units clarifying this is needed, but would have been clearer if it stated that the unit was the target, as it does not resolve this question if the libby is in a unit which effected unit does his unit need to fire at.

 

Many attacks can affect multiple units. In all generic cases the attack still has a target, and affecting a second unit does not change your target or affect who you can assault. Flamers do not require you to assault the closest damaged unit, for example.

 

If the librarian had taken a target, absolutely no clarification would have been needed. He would need to assault his target, no matter how many units were hit or not hit before that target unit was hit (or not!).

 

The clarification can only be needed because he had no target.

 

The FAQ says nothing about what an attached unit can fire at. Indeed, the FAQ does not obligate the librarian to even attempt to hit the same unit as his attached squad is firing at. He can send the line in a totally different direction. (This would mean the unit cannot charge at all - since the unit and the librarian would have different compulsions on who to charge, making any initial model move to start an assault illegal. But its still a legal division of firing).

 

Considering you aren't allowed to measure any distances until you've declared targets, the librarian can't even put his line down until the squad has declared targets. Those targets are irrelevant to blood lance (it takes no target, and can go in any direction). So whichever unit the librarian affects first won't even be known when the squad is deciding targets.

 

The inclusion/exclusion canon: They included language about target and LoS for JotWW's FAQ, but not BL's. When they include language in one place but not in another, they do so for a reason. They intend for them to work differently.

 

They don't always put language in ever FAQ, on top of which perhaps due to the JAWS FAQ this question was never really asked.

 

(1) There's absolutely no reason a BA player should be expected to be familiar with a FAQ for a totally different codex answer relating to a completely different power. Absolutely none. The BRB, BA Codex, and FAQs to same are the ONLY things a BA player should be expected to be familiar with to use his own codex's rules.

 

(2) They do answer a similar question for both BL and JotWW (regarding which unit can be assaulted), and the answers to those questions differ greatly in content between the powers. JotWW's FAQ tells you to treat the first affected unit as the originating model's _target_, BL does not. At which point they already work substantially differently, so there's no reason to suspect any other FAQ answer's for JotWW apply.

 

(3) JotWW requires an (irrelevant) roll to hit (see here), but does not allow cover saves. BL requires no rolls to hit, and does allow cover saves. JotWW affects individual models, BL affects units. Fundamentally the two powers work completely different.

 

(4) If two powers are meant to work differently, they would receive different instructions. Thus, if we receive different instructions, its totally illogical to think they would work the same - that's the only way we can know they were meant to work differently! You're basically saying GW could never have a line-based power that worked differently, because, being a line, we have to assume they meant for them to work the same even with instructions to the contrary. I'm sorry, but no, your position has to be rejected. Different instructions, different powers, different operation. If they want two things to work the same they have to tell us so. That's the only sane standard.

 

Occam's Razor canon: Assuming BL works exactly as it says requires fewer assumptions than assuming it requires interpolation of a FAQ for another codex about another power entirely applies. BL not taking a target is the simpler explanation. (Seriously, there's no reason a BA player should need to read the SW FAQ to know how to use their codex).

 

Assuming BL functions like all other psychic shooting attacks except when noted is far close to the easiest explanation rather than assuming things found nowhere in the 40k rule set.

 

It tells us to ignore choosing a target. Extend a line in *any* direction. If we had a target, we'd extend a line *toward* the target.

 

It violates most of the other rules for psychic shooting attacks as well, like by not requiring a roll to hit.

 

I'm assuming nothing. I'm doing exactly what the power says to do. As the power is found in the 40k rules set, then i'm certainly not assuming things not found in the rules.

 

You're assuming a FAQ for a different specific codex for a power whose only similarity is it draws a line, but otherwise works totally differently, magically applies to BL with no indication from GW that this is so. This is far less simple than assuming BL simply does what it says it does.

 

Permissive Ruleset Canon: Rules never tell you that you can check LoS to the first unit, therefore you're not even allowed to do so. They never tell you that said unit is your target, so it isn't.

 

Blood Lance is a shooting attack the brb gives you permission to check LOS for all shooting attacks, therefore you are allowed to do so, the same holds true for selecting a target. this argument fails, the rule set never says you ignore LOS and that you don't need a target, therefore you do. This argument is at least equally valid.

 

The BRB gives you permission to check LoS to your *target*. As you have no target, you cannot check LoS.

 

The rules say you extend the line from the librarian in *any* direction. No mention of target at all. No unit is required to be hit.

 

Your argument is totally invalid. You're imagining things into the rules of BL that aren't there. It specifically instructs us to skip steps 1, 2, and 3, and replaces them with alternate rules to determine which units are hit.

 

"In any direction" also includes directions where there are no models in the line's path. If you had to select a target, such directions would be forbidden as you don't shoot at the target in that case.

 

Maybe GW intended for this to mean that you did not need to worry about model facing with dreads, or other models in the unit with the libby, and assumed no one would use the power with no "target" in mind.

 

How about we just play the rules like they actually say and not make stuff up?

 

We could play 'what if' forever. None of what you're saying has any basis in actual rules text.

 

Lastly if you needed to select a target, it would create the same problem as with flamer templates in case the template/line does not reach the selected target.

 

what problem, all shooting attacks allow you to target units beyond your range, if the target is out of range you miss.

 

Lol. Only attacks which check range can automatically miss. BL does not check range - it has no range, you place the line and any touched unit takes a hit. Period. Any untouched unit does not take a hit. Automatic hit is automatic. BL can never 'miss' in the rules meaning of the word. It can not affect a unit, but that's not the same as missing.

 

As to the dispute over templates, well, i'm only going to say that people can't even agree what it means to say a template weapon is *in range*. (I will not have this discussion here, needless to say the fundamental mechanics about templates is in dispute.)

[JamesI]

I pretty much agree with Squirrelloid here.

 

He's wrong that Jaws requires a to hit roll, that was fixed in the last SW FAQ.

 

Personally, I think GW intends BL to target the same way as Jaws. But so far we have not been told that is the case by the rules. So either my belief in GW's consistency is wrong or GW worded something badly. Either way is irrelevant, until GW FAQs it we don't use the word target with BL.

[dswanick]

I'm not going to pick squirrelloid's post apart bit by bit - because it's just too long. But here are two highlights :

1. "Plain Language canon" /"Superfluous Language canon" - GW never signed onto this "Rules Lawyers Set of Rules on writting Rules for Rules Lawyers". GW routinely uses Plain Language in ways that are other than plain, and Superfluous Language when there is a simpler way of writting what they are trying to say. That's just GW.

2. "Ie, your argument is equivalent to 'there is no rules'. That argument can be rejected out of hand. If they haven't said what they mean, well, we only have what they said to go by. What they actually mean is irrelevant. We have to assume that what they've said is what they've meant."

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important. So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines the choice is entirely yours.

ie - "There are no rules". Welcome to the nightmare ;).

[Squirrelloid]

I pretty much agree with Squirrelloid here.

 

He's wrong that Jaws requires a to hit roll, that was fixed in the last SW FAQ.

 

Personally, I think GW intends BL to target the same way as Jaws. But so far we have not been told that is the case by the rules. So either my belief in GW's consistency is wrong or GW worded something badly. Either way is irrelevant, until GW FAQs it we don't use the word target with BL.

 

Oh did they?

 

Not a SW player, i glanced at their FAQ once, many months ago. I'm a BA player, I stay up to date on my own FAQ and the BRB FAQ. =P

 

Anyway, sorry about that. (Not that Jaws needing a roll to hit mattered at all, since the outcome of the roll had no affect).

[Squirrelloid]

I'm not going to pick squirrelloid's post apart bit by bit - because it's just too long. But here are two highlights :

1. "Plain Language canon" /"Superfluous Language canon" - GW never signed onto this "Rules Lawyers Set of Rules on writting Rules for Rules Lawyers". GW routinely uses Plain Language in ways that are other than plain, and Superfluous Language when there is a simpler way of writting what they are trying to say. That's just GW.

 

Congress never signed on to those either, and congress's laws get interpreted via them all the time.

 

Its not tools for writing rules, its tools for interpreting rules written by a third party to determine the best reading. GW doesn't have to sign on to them - but they should expect those principles, or principles very close to them, to be the way people parse what they've written.

 

2. "Ie, your argument is equivalent to 'there is no rules'. That argument can be rejected out of hand. If they haven't said what they mean, well, we only have what they said to go by. What they actually mean is irrelevant. We have to assume that what they've said is what they've meant."

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important. So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines the choice is entirely yours.

ie - "There are no rules". Welcome to the nightmare ;).

 

Its one thing to say the rules can be treated as guidelines. Its another to say they claim things that they don't.

 

I mean, a gaming group could choose to play BL any number of ways, including in ways totally contradictory to what the codex says. However, that doesn't actually change what the codex (and FAQ) actually say. GW is giving permission to ignore the rules, not put words in their mouth.

[Quixus]

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important. So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines the choice is entirely yours.

ie - "There are no rules". Welcome to the nightmare :lol:.

Well as long as the involved players agree and it is fun for all of them, they can do everything they like, even stuff that blatantly contradicts the rules. This however does not offer a good base for a discussion in the OR. For such a discussion we have to treat them as "sacrosanct" unless we want the discussion to devolve into "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"

[breng77]

The position that we should just make up what we think GW meant is untenable. Either they say to do something or they don't. If they don't say to do something, we shouldn't pretend they did. That way lies madness, and we'll never agree on how to play the game.

 

Ie, your argument is equivalent to 'there is no rules'. That argument can be rejected out of hand. If they haven't said what they mean, well, we only have what they said to go by. What they actually mean is irrelevant. We have to assume that what they've said is what they've meant.

 

If we assume your method then the game would be unplayable as there are tons of contentious poorly written rules. Furthermore if GW always meant what they said, FAQs would be unneeded.

 

(1) There's absolutely no reason a BA player should be expected to be familiar with a FAQ for a totally different codex answer relating to a completely different power. Absolutely none. The BRB, BA Codex, and FAQs to same are the ONLY things a BA player should be expected to be familiar with to use his own codex's rules.

 

Have fun getting cheated then...I don't play either army all that much and am familar with both FAQs enough to know most of the rulings. Should you be as familar no, but I would expect my opponents to know a reasonable amount about all the armies if they intend to be good players.

 

3) JotWW requires an (irrelevant) roll to hit (see here), but does not allow cover saves. BL requires no rolls to hit, and does allow cover saves. JotWW affects individual models, BL affects units. Fundamentally the two powers work completely different.

 

They work differently but as they are the only psychic shooting attacks that draw a line for their effects they are the closest powers. Now you can say that they are not the same (they are not), but they function similarly. I'm not saying that the rules must be the same, but the use of JAWS as a guideline is not completely out of bounds.

 

It tells us to ignore choosing a target. Extend a line in *any* direction. If we had a target, we'd extend a line *toward* the target.

It tells us to ignore choosing a target? where in the wording is that written, you assume that the word any direction means ignore targeting, when as I already presented it could mean something else entirely.

 

It violates most of the other rules for psychic shooting attacks as well, like by not requiring a roll to hit.

 

this is the only definite part of the psychic shooting rules it violates, so because it violates this it must violate other rules as well?

 

You're assuming a FAQ for a different specific codex for a power whose only similarity is it draws a line, but otherwise works totally differently, magically applies to BL with no indication from GW that this is so. This is far less simple than assuming BL simply does what it says it does.

 

the only thing I would definitely assume is that except where noted (the roll to hit) that this power obeys every other rule for psychic shooting attacks.

 

Honestly I don't know how the power works either way, only that I have always seen it played (at major events and local tourneys) as needing LOS, and Granting cover. Which to me suggests the issue is not so cut and dry as you seem to think as arguments can be made (using the rules) for either side, and as such needs an FAQ answer. That said I am obviously not going to convince you that it is anything but clear, because GW is obviously always clear, and always FAQs things that are unclear. SO I'm out on this one.

[Quixus]

the only thing I would definitely assume is that except where noted (the roll to hit) that this power obeys every other rule for psychic shooting attacks.

I agree, but if you select a target either this selection is meaningless for the direction of the line or you unduly restrict the specific rules of the power. Assuming you do select a target, according to the FAQ the selection is also meaningless for assaults as you can only charge the unit the lance hits first, no matter what your selected target was. Now what purpose does selecting a target serve?

[dswanick]

I'm not going to pick squirrelloid's post apart bit by bit - because it's just too long. But here are two highlights :

1. "Plain Language canon" /"Superfluous Language canon" - GW never signed onto this "Rules Lawyers Set of Rules on writting Rules for Rules Lawyers". GW routinely uses Plain Language in ways that are other than plain, and Superfluous Language when there is a simpler way of writting what they are trying to say. That's just GW.

 

Congress never signed on to those either, and congress's laws get interpreted via them all the time.

 

Its not tools for writing rules, its tools for interpreting rules written by a third party to determine the best reading. GW doesn't have to sign on to them - but they should expect those principles, or principles very close to them, to be the way people parse what they've written.

No, that's what you expect. That has no bearing on how GW expects their rules to be read and interpreted. See my example in other threads about someone not being able to see under the bonnet, and asking a friend to get him a torch out of the boot.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm not going to pick squirrelloid's post apart bit by bit - because it's just too long. But here are two highlights :

1. "Plain Language canon" /"Superfluous Language canon" - GW never signed onto this "Rules Lawyers Set of Rules on writting Rules for Rules Lawyers". GW routinely uses Plain Language in ways that are other than plain, and Superfluous Language when there is a simpler way of writting what they are trying to say. That's just GW.

 

Congress never signed on to those either, and congress's laws get interpreted via them all the time.

 

Its not tools for writing rules, its tools for interpreting rules written by a third party to determine the best reading. GW doesn't have to sign on to them - but they should expect those principles, or principles very close to them, to be the way people parse what they've written.

No, that's what you expect. That has no bearing on how GW expects their rules to be read and interpreted. See my example in other threads about someone not being able to see under the bonnet, and asking a friend to get him a torch out of the boot.

 

I don't think your example applies - there's no idiomatic problem here.

 

And GW cannot expect their customers to be mind-readers. We can't actually *know* what they were thinking when they wrote it. We only know what they wrote. What they wrote is the rules, not what was in their head.

 

Nor can any persuasive case be made that they were necessarily thinking BL should work just like JotWW, since it pretty explicitly doesn't in lots of other ways.

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how GW expects their rules to be read and interpreted. Their intention is totally irrelevant until and unless they make it plain and in writing so its available to everyone. All we have is what they have written.

 

And the clincher really is that if two rules are supposed to work differently, the only way they can communicate that is in differences in their language. If we assume based on one similarity that other aspects should also be similar, they have no way to convey different operations at all. I mean, it would be totally unreasonable for GW to write 'JotWW has no bearing on the functioning of BL', its in a totally separate codex and BL makes no reference to it! That's not a reasonable standard to hold GW to for writing rules which function differently. The only reasonable standard is if the rules are described differently, then they work differently as per their descriptions.

[angry man]

this thread is just going to go back and forth, back and forth...

 

haveing established that BL is a shooting attack, the disagreement seems to have boiled down to which steps of the rules for shooting, are altered/ignored when using BL.

 

Frosty very kindly laid it out plain and simple for us

1.Declare target and check LOS

2.Check range

3. roll to hit

4. roll to wound

5. take saving throws

6. remove casulties

 

Blood lance rules changes 2 via its 4d6 range and 3 the roll to hit (via automatic hits of enemies under the line) but does not change step 1 or step 5 in any way.

i think that we all agree with Frosty on the points that step 2 and 3 are altered.

 

however it seems that the 2 differing opinions are whether the language used, "extend a line in any direction", is enough instruction to overrule step1. this is where it opinoins start to conflict...

 

Arguements FOR override step 1

1. "any direction" means that the line can go anywhere, even out of LOS

2. FAQ stating the first unit hit is the one that must be charged is due to there being no target = no LOS needed

 

Arguements AGAINST override step 1

1. as a shooting attack, BL must declare a target in LOS

2. you can only charge your shooting target, therefore, assault-able unit = target

 

honestly, i can see both sides of the arguement, but it is my opinion that given the RAW we have to go on, that the evidence supports there being no target

 

AM