Purifiers

[Sepiroth]

Hi guys, just something I’d like cleared up.

 

I was playing against one of my friends yesterday and I fielded some Purifiers. Once in combat I did their psychic power to do Cleansing flame. The test succeeded, I then picked up a dice for every enemy model in the combat (10) rolled it and said he must take a save for every 4 I rolled.

 

Not very happy with the rule as I played it he then asked me to show him the rule in the book which says this on pg 31

“…if the psychic power is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.”

 

Now he said it works like this.

After all models have been moved into combat, you do your test and then roll ONE dice. If the single dice roll is a 4+ then every model in the enemy unit suffers a wound. If you roll less than a 4+ then nothing happens. Sooo, it all boils down to ONE roll that either wounds every model in the enemy unit or does nothing.

 

 

Ugh….help?

[StormTAG]

Yay ambiguity. If GW has written "...roll one die. On a 4+ ever enemy model that is part of the same assault suffers one wound." it'd be clear that it works the way your opponent suggested. However, I think you're right in this case. There's nothing per-se to back that up besides, it seems to make more sense in the context of the game. Very rare are the effects that affect an entire enemy unit on one roll.

[Sepiroth]

hahaha yikes. so he can argue it?

 

Man, Im not sure I want the whole effect running on a single dice roll...seems wrong.

[drou feov]

I think logic dictates that you roll once for every model in the enemy unit.

 

It's an area of flame that shoots forward from the purifiers if the test is succesful. The enemy then rolls for who gets burned and who does not... Some guys on the enemy unit might be able to duck and cover or otherwise avoid the flames and do not take a wound while others aren't so lucky.

 

If you rolled just once and failed it would imply that all of the assaulting enemies managed to simultaneously dodge the flame, or that for some other reason no one got burned to cinders...

 

I find these kind of questions are always most easily answered if you put your imagination to it and think what is actually happening in the battle at any given moment. B)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Your friend is being stupid. You roll 4+ for every model in the enemy unit. He's just trying to cheat you out of your burny victory.

[Sepiroth]

cool thanks guys

[number6]

Your friend is being stupid. You roll 4+ for every model in the enemy unit. He's just trying to cheat you out of your burny victory.

I disagree! I think the rule is really quite clear. You roll a single die. 50% chance everybody takes a wound. 50% chance nothing happens.

 

all enemy models ... suffer one wound on a roll of 4+

 

It doesn't say "roll to wound every enemy model". It says "all enemy models are wounded on a die roll".

 

This shouldn't be construed as a bad thing. It's a massive risk for anybody to get caught in assault with purifiers, actually scarier than than if you had to roll to wound every model.

 

I agree about the fluff of it. And I also agree that this could be FAQ'd to clarify it either way.

 

But I find the threat posed by the "all or nothing" version of the RAW to be considerably larger than if you had to roll for wounds on every model.

[lordsloth]

The idea of there being one roll for the whole result had never actually occured to me. It seemed logical to me that there would be a roll per enemy model. Having said that, now that the idea has been made apparent to me, I cant really find any definite way to read the power description. It can be read either way.

 

I do agree with the person above who said that a roll per model is more in line with the rest of the game. But common sense should never have a place in a rules discussion :D

 

Imho, it needs a FAQ (like so many other things in the codex) because its just not clear as it is now.

[Grand Master Tchezzarus]

Like with the 3rd Ed codex, GW did make a mess with translation if you are right in your interpretation N6.

My codex is the french one, and as the rule is translated there is NO possibility to unterstand it any differently than :

role 1D6 per model in the unit...

It will be interesting to learn what the other language codex have for translation, after all the translater have to ask GW what was their intention (RAI) when they struggle with an anbiguous english wording.

 

Tchezz.

[Angelis Mortis]

Like with the 3rd Ed codex, GW did make a mess with translation if you are right in your interpretation N6.

My codex is the french one, and as the rule is translated there is NO possibility to unterstand it any differently than :

role 1D6 per model in the unit...

It will be interesting to learn what the other language codex have for translation, after all the translater have to ask GW what was their intention (RAI) when they struggle with an anbiguous english wording.

 

Tchezz.

 

For arguments sake, can you post it in French and then translate literally for us?

[CheezeFezt]

I read it as one die, all or nothing. Average work out the same. Of course, if your head is on fire and your feet is frozen, on average, your body is doing fine.

 

Ork dakka works similarly. Not sure why rolling one dice is cheating or unfair. Whoopie, so power is more unpredictable than you like. It's still pretty good.

 

English is just fine. All model = one dice. Each model = one per dice. They wrote all model.

[lordsloth]

I read it as one die, all or nothing. Average work out the same. Of course, if your head is on fire and your feet is frozen, on average, your body is doing fine.

 

Ork dakka works similarly. Not sure why rolling one dice is cheating or unfair. Whoopie, so power is more unpredictable than you like. It's still pretty good.

 

English is just fine. All model = one dice. Each model = one per dice. They wrote all model.

 

Even if it is clear in English (which imho it isnt, but that aside), its apparently clear the other way in french. So a FAQing is still needed me thinks.

[DeathKorpsman]

I wouldn't have a problem if that's the way my opponent wanted me to play it, but I'm going to stick with one model per die until I see something that isn't ambiguous. As was pointed out, the math is sort of the same except your average is going to be better when you roll more dice.

[Fenric]

More dice= more fun

 

I feel that it should be each model takes a woudn on 4+ and it's the only way i've seen it before this topic. But it makes sense the other way around aswell so will just have a chat with my friends and see how we shoudl play it out until the FAQ is released.

[CheezeFezt]

I wouldn't have a problem if that's the way my opponent wanted me to play it, but I'm going to stick with one model per die until I see something that isn't ambiguous. As was pointed out, the math is sort of the same except your average is going to be better when you roll more dice.

 

 

Average remains the save. It's the distribution that changes.

[Cpt. Blood Donator]

I've no problem with this as I play Blood Angels. An orc player however, might disagree with that you've just set 30 5+ boys on fire. Doesn't seem right.

[DeathKorpsman]

I wouldn't have a problem if that's the way my opponent wanted me to play it, but I'm going to stick with one model per die until I see something that isn't ambiguous. As was pointed out, the math is sort of the same except your average is going to be better when you roll more dice.

 

 

Average remains the save. It's the distribution that changes.

 

If you're going to be technical, yes. To someone who cares about math the average doesn't actually change. Thank you very much for correcting that.

 

In game terms, or practical usage, the larger number of rolls is going to average out better and be more consistent. If you only use the power once or twice in a game, you could easily pass or fail every time. That is much less likely if you are rolling for every opposing model. I don't much care if my use of average isn't the correct technical/mathematical term, since I was using it to point towards the improved consistency of the power with the 1 model per dice interpretation of the rule.

 

I also agree with Cpt. Blood Donator that the 1 dice for the whole test interpretation seems to really put horde type units in more risk than they should be. From a statistics point of view, it might be no different. But from a gameplay perspective it makes a large difference, both with good rolling and with the psychological impact against an opponent. If I'm a nid player, I'd be willing to chance going up against that power if it was model by model. But if it was one roll for the whole swarm I'd think twice about it.

[Grand Master Tchezzarus]

As asked :

"si le test psychique est reussi, jettez 1D6 pour chaque figurine ennemie prenant part au combat, celle-ci subit une blessure sur un resultat de 4+."

wich could be litterally translated by :

"if the psychic test is passed, throw 1D6 for each ennemy model in the fight, those ones are inflicted a wound on a result of 4+."

 

Sure it need a FAQ, but I thuink I already know wich way it will be ruled. I'm pretty sure that if you ask somone with a german or a spanish Dex, or whatever other language the transaltion will be the same. Just because the transaltor has to ask GW the RAI in order to translate the RAW.

 

just my two cents.

 

Tchezz.

[Tankred]

Sorry, but my german Codex says it the english way.

 

German: "Gelingt der Psitest, so erleidet jedes feindliche Modell, das sich im selben Nahkampf befindet, bei einem Wurfergebnis von 4+ einen Lebenspunktverlust"

 

I would translate it this way: "If the Psitest succeeds, every enemy Model in this Melee is being wounded on a roll of 4+" or the way it is posted in the first post, so there is no statement on how many dice are to be rolled.

[Angelis Mortis]

As asked :

"si le test psychique est reussi, jettez 1D6 pour chaque figurine ennemie prenant part au combat, celle-ci subit une blessure sur un resultat de 4+."

wich could be litterally translated by :

"if the psychic test is passed, throw 1D6 for each ennemy model in the fight, those ones are inflicted a wound on a result of 4+."

 

Sure it need a FAQ, but I thuink I already know wich way it will be ruled. I'm pretty sure that if you ask somone with a german or a spanish Dex, or whatever other language the transaltion will be the same. Just because the transaltor has to ask GW the RAI in order to translate the RAW.

 

just my two cents.

 

Tchezz.

 

Very nice, thank you sir. I think that is the way it really should be, as it is a pretty established game mechanic. I would chalk it up to misprint and expect a FAQ correcting the English to this wording.

 

 

Sorry, but my german Codex says it the english way.

 

German: "Gelingt der Psitest, so erleidet jedes feindliche Modell, das sich im selben Nahkampf befindet, bei einem Wurfergebnis von 4+ einen Lebenspunktverlust"

 

I would translate it this way: "If the Psitest succeeds, every enemy Model in this Melee is being wounded on a roll of 4+" or the way it is posted in the first post, so there is no statement on how many dice are to be rolled.

 

Keep in mind Tankred, that will be could be more common then you think. Afterall, English is a Germanic language and would probably have a lot of things that translate quite literally. Not all of course, but many wouldn't be unexpected.

[DV8]

So apparently Games Workshop is ambiguous and inconsistent not only in one language, but across multiple languages as well!

 

By RAW, there is no way you can argue the English version of the rule, and if a player asks that you roll a single D6 for each casting of Cleansing Flame, there's really no evidence or proof to support the "roll a D6 per model" approach.

 

However, a broad majority of Grey Knight players in my local area (re: all of them) take the 1D6 per model approach, which seems to be the general interpretation of what should be happening.

 

Until GW FAQs it just ask your opponent which they'd prefer. the 1D6 for the entire unit is risky, but potentially lethal as it gives a 50% chance of hitting every model engaged in combat (not as big an issue with small units, devastating against big units like Hormagaunts, Orks, or Imperial Guard blob squads). 1D6 per model is less risky, and you'll average dealing 50% wounds per casting.

 

 

DV8

[Grand Master Tchezzarus]

Maybe there won't be any FAQ at all reguarding this question... or as too many other, like in 3rd Ed!

So you'll have to "check" other languages codex for guidance....

 

I really do fell that all the problem I had with the 3rd Ed codex are the same with thr 5th Ed one! but on a larger scale!!!!!!

 

Befor I was struglinc to make a viable 1750pts army, now it's a 2000pts one I strugle with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

but rule wise it seem preety clear at least in French.

[gil galed]

Never read it any other way than 1d6 per model lol :lol:, but I suppose it should be all or nothing.

 

Gotta say the all or nothing approach, if it works, will be lethal against ork mobs and the like, imagine pulling off a multi-charge and killing off pretty much two entire mobs! Win

 

~Gil :sweat:

[CheezeFezt]

I wouldn't have a problem if that's the way my opponent wanted me to play it, but I'm going to stick with one model per die until I see something that isn't ambiguous. As was pointed out, the math is sort of the same except your average is going to be better when you roll more dice.

 

 

Average remains the save. It's the distribution that changes.

 

If you're going to be technical, yes. To someone who cares about math the average doesn't actually change. Thank you very much for correcting that.

 

In game terms, or practical usage, the larger number of rolls is going to average out better and be more consistent.

 

No, it doesn't average out better.

 

Which would you rather have? Let's say a squad of 5 purifiers charged 30 ork boyz.

 

Would you rather have 50% of the time, 5 purifiers survived and completely wipe out 30 ork boyz?

Or would you rather have, 50% of the time, at most 2.4 purifiers is left with at least 14.4 ork boys still standing (before fearless and drag down rule)?

 

Would you rather have, 90% of the time, at least 2 purifiers are dead with 0% probability of 0 dead? Or would you rather have, 50% of the time, 0 purifiers are dead?

[Trystt]

I don't know, an earlier post mentioned the way this would work in a realistic situation... what happens when you roll that 1-3? Does the whole enemy squad just completely dodge the roll? Does the flame get blown aside in a breeze? Or maybe for some crazy reason, the purifiers realize they're firing straight into the air instead of at the enemy?

 

Seems more logical to roll one dice per enemy. Not to mention fair. I mean I'd personally like to give those ork boyz a little bit more of a fighting chance instead of completely wiping them out in one go. Might get more returning opponents this way :P