How Blood Lance works?

[Something Wycked]

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

Seconded. :geek:

 

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

Seconded. :lol: Normal shooting attacks require a target and LoS check; the RAW of Blood Lance does not specifically say it overrides the need to pick a target in LoS, but the instructions on using the power appear to make targets and LoS unnecessary.

 

Ultimately, if you bring Blood Lance to a battle, it may be a good idea to talk about how you and your opponent think it should work.

[breng77]

Ultimately, if you bring Blood Lance to a battle, it may be a good idea to talk about how you and your opponent think it should work.

 

Which unless you:

 

a.) attend a club/tourney that plays it as not requiring LOS etc.

b.)are looking for a rules argument.

 

You should ask your opponent how they would play it and go with that interpretation.

 

Or leave the power at home in favor of other better BA powers (Unleash Rage, Shield, Fear the Darkness)

[Brother Valerius]

I have followed this discussion for 5 pages (well, 4), and frankly I am amazed that it has gone on this long. There is no room for contention on this topic if one wishes to stay within the framework of the rules.

 

Is Blood Lance a shooting attack? Yes. Then it follows all the rules for shooting attacks, except as specifically exempted from following them. You can't simply infer exemptions to the rules for a shooting attack, and claim to be following the rules as written. That isn't how "rules as written" works.

[appiah4]

Is Blood Lance a shooting attack? Yes. Then it follows all the rules for shooting attacks, except as specifically exempted from following them. You can't simply infer exemptions to the rules for a shooting attack, and claim to be following the rules as written. That isn't how "rules as written" works.

 

Yeah well, the trouble is we don't see eye to eye on what is specifically exempted. You could use going back and re-reading the thread as you apparently seem to have dismissively skim-read what you disagree with.

[JamesI]

Is Blood Lance a shooting attack? Yes. Then it follows all the rules for shooting attacks, except as specifically exempted from following them. You can't simply infer exemptions to the rules for a shooting attack, and claim to be following the rules as written. That isn't how "rules as written" works.

 

Yeah well, the trouble is we don't see eye to eye on what is specifically exempted. You could use going back and re-reading the thread as you apparently seem to have dismissively skim-read what you disagree with.

For something to be specifically exempted it needs a statment that says "This attack does not provide cover saves" or a FAQ question that says "Can cover saves be taken on Blood Lance? A: No"

 

That is what is required to be specifically exempted.

[Quixus]

Allowing cover saves is only one of the disagreements. As weird as it sounds conceptually, I agree that cover saves should be allowed against blood lance. Cover saves do not prevent hits, they prevent wounds (and on vehicles glancing and penetrating hits). No part of the Blood lance's descriptions negates that, unless you think there is no directionality to the line.

 

The other problem is the designation of a target. If this were required, it would either contradict the wording of Blood Lance or would be absolutely irrelevant as you are permitted to put the line in any direction, have no range at that point and have to charge the first unit the power hits and not the designated target.

[JamesI]

The other problem is the designation of a target. If this were required, it would either contradict the wording of Blood Lance or would be absolutely irrelevant as you are permitted to put the line in any direction, have no range at that point and have to charge the first unit the power hits and not the designated target.

The target issue is irrelevant basically in my opinion.

 

We know the Librarian has to charge whoever the first unit touched by blood lance is (of course, you could get the interesting scenario of the closest unit being 5 inches away, rolling 4 ones and being unable to charge as you reached no unit!. We know how to aim blood lance, a straight line wherever we want. The whole idea of if there is a target or not is irrelevant in my opinion.

[Brother Valerius]

Is Blood Lance a shooting attack? Yes. Then it follows all the rules for shooting attacks, except as specifically exempted from following them. You can't simply infer exemptions to the rules for a shooting attack, and claim to be following the rules as written. That isn't how "rules as written" works.

 

Yeah well, the trouble is we don't see eye to eye on what is specifically exempted. You could use going back and re-reading the thread as you apparently seem to have dismissively skim-read what you disagree with.

For something to be specifically exempted it needs a statment that says "This attack does not provide cover saves" or a FAQ question that says "Can cover saves be taken on Blood Lance? A: No"

 

That is what is required to be specifically exempted.

 

JamesI nails it in one. If you believe that Blood Lance doesn't allow cover saves (since that seems to be the main point of real import), you need to find rules text explicitly stating that a) psychic shooting attacks don't allow cover saves, or b ) Blood Lance doesn't allow cover saves. Otherwise, you have no argument in a context of RAW.

[angry man]

The whole idea of if there is a target or not is irrelevant in my opinion.

but it is relevant, because this determines whether or not any LoS is required

 

but as i said previously i think the confliction of language prevents us from making a black and white call on the matter

 

AM

[Brother Valerius]

The whole idea of if there is a target or not is irrelevant in my opinion.

but it is relevant, because this determines whether or not any LoS is required

 

but as i said previously i think the confliction of language prevents us from making a black and white call on the matter

 

AM

 

Targeting something is not required to check LOS to it, so when it comes time to work out cover saves you would just check LOS and skip the whole "was this model targeted?" hair-splitting.

[angry man]

im well aware of that. however, LoS is required to target something. the cover save issue seemed to be agreed upon a while ago. the dscussion transgressed to be more about wether you could aim lance towards a unit you had no LoS to

 

AM

[JamesI]

im well aware of that. however, LoS is required to target something. the cover save issue seemed to be agreed upon a while ago. the dscussion transgressed to be more about wether you could aim lance towards a unit you had no LoS to

 

AM

By RAW, I think you can. I would play it where I need LOS though, just to avoid the argument.

[Grimtooth]

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

 

A good summation.

 

The override of step 1 argument tends to hold more water in the sense that it does not further break any rules set by GW with the "any direction" or the FAQ regarding the first unit hit being the only unit able to assault. The FAQ is contradictory enough to make the case.

 

People need to read up again on the rules for psychic shooting attacks in the BRB. Exceptions to the general rules on employing psychic shooting attacks will be found in the codexes, simply as that. There is no standard set for codex exceptions that insist that the wording be,

 

"XXXX does not need LoS."

 

If the codex tells you how to employ the psychic shooting attack and it is contrary to the general rules for employing a psychic shooting attack, you follow the codex. My argument for JAWS not needing a to roll hit fell right in line with that interpretation the entire time and I used the comparison of JAWS to Living Lightning and Fury of the Wolf Spirits to cement my argument on how psychic shooting attacks differ in wording to either follow the general rules or follow the codex exemptions.