Warp rift and wound allocation

[Angelis Mortis]

Sounds to me like your just having a fit because more people agree with him than you.

 

;) And now with the personal attacks. Oh dear, how disappointing that common sense advice is met with this kind of thing. Futhermore your ridiculous remark here is not even correct. I recognize the answer is unclear and have said so (which if you read my last post carefully you would have noticed this). I also have taken enough mathematics and statistics courses in elementary school and high school, and have used the internet for more than 5 minutes of my life to come to the conclusion that unscientific online polls are meaningless. And this wasn't even a poll. Your remark, while cute, bears no rational relationship to reality.

 

This will be my last off topic remark to you in here, I suggest you drop this, otherwise the mods will have to step in.

 

Personal attacks? Thats all you've been doing since I and another member posted our opinions. You from word one have been saying "Your opinion doesn't matter because you didn't say anything but you agree" and other such inflammitory, arrogant garbage. Claiming we have nothing to add because we agree with somebodies point of view? FYI Troll, there have been mods posting in this thread. Do you think they skipped over our posts?

[number6]

The sniping back and forth will now cease.

 

Or I will hand out warnings to multiple participants of this topic.

 

And there's an aphorism associated with playing poker and thinking you're not the mark that applies, so bear that in mind before you -- any of you -- make your next post.

 

I will also be more than happy to close this topic down for good if you -- all of you -- can't debate the rules of a game like mature adults.

[CheezeFezt]

Becuase there's no rules for that way.

 

There is no rules for that way? I presume by that way, you're referring to "remove a model as casualty", which is the rule for warp rift.

 

Or ratter it's inconsistent, and illogical to, for exmaple, take an I test on an I6 DCA, but when that fails, rmeove an I3 Warrior instead.

 

I agree. The IC example was to show the illogic of the argument that when the dex rule say "unit take take", that it must translate into "model take test". Please allow me to elaborate.

 

Would we all agree the dex is very clear in its wording: "The target unit must take an initiative test" means "unit", not model?

 

Would we all agree the BRB has no rules for how "unit" take initiative test?

 

So what is left is for us sport to determine how to play unit take test.

 

One can go strictly RAW. By going strictly RAW, the rule only allows for model to take test. OK. Individual model take test. BRB p8 detail how model take characteristic test and how it pass/fail them. It say nothing about how to apply the result of the pass/fail of the test. That's up to the dex. The dex, RAW, say remove a model. Not remove model that failed test.

 

So if one want to play strictly RAW, then by RAW, remove a model.

 

Playing strictly RAW means, intent and logic don't matter much if the rule is clear. The rule is clear and the rule is not inconsistent. Model take initiative test. For each test failed, remove a model. Nothing inconsistent there.

 

Do they really need to tell one to remove the models that failed specificly?

 

If you want to play strictly RAW, then yes, the rules as written really need to be written to say remove model that failed the initiative test. There are plenty of other rules in Codex: GK that are that specific -- model take blah test, if model fail blah test, apply these result.

 

The other way to play "unit take test" is by extrapolation/intent. There are no rules for how unit take test, let's extrapolate from the rules.

 

There is precedent for playing rules by extrapolation. For example:

 

Because following the logic that since unit is used in the target of the effect it must be resolved on the unit we find we have BAs who dont get furious charge or FNP- because the rules dont provide for units to use it, only models.

 

There are no rules in the BRB for how to determine a unit is within range. The BA Blood Chalice "Friendly unit within 6" gains Furious Charge and Feel No Pain." The BRB only has rule for how to determine a model is within range. So if you want to play strictly raw, only models within 6" of the priest gain Furious Charge & FNP. But that's not how anybody play that rule. They play rules by extrapolation, unit gain furious charge/FNP.

 

The reason why the IC example is illogical is because the argument for sniping is illogical. First, invoke RAW to require model to take test. Then claim RAW is illogical (do they really need to say remove model that failed the test), dismiss RAW, and invoke RAI (the intent is the model that failed get affected, BTW please ignore the overarching intent of the rule saying the target unit is affected).

 

Playing strictly RAW, remove any model.

 

Playing RAI, the intent is pretty darn clean, "unit take test".

 

Either way you play it, no sniping. The only way you can argue sniping is to convolute and mix RAW & RAI.

[Gentlemanloser]

I wasn't the authoer of al those quotes. ;)

 

There is no rules for that way? I presume by that way, you're referring to "remove a model as casualty", which is the rule for warp rift.

 

No. For majority 'I' tests.

 

I agree. The IC example was to show the illogic of the argument that when the dex rule say "unit take take", that it must translate into "model take test". Please allow me to elaborate.

 

Would we all agree the dex is very clear in its wording: "The target unit must take an initiative test" means "unit", not model?

 

Would we all agree the BRB has no rules for how "unit" take initiative test?

 

So what is left is for us sport to determine how to play unit take test.

 

One can go strictly RAW. By going strictly RAW, the rule only allows for model to take test. OK. Individual model take test. BRB p8 detail how model take characteristic test and how it pass/fail them. It say nothing about how to apply the result of the pass/fail of the test. That's up to the dex. The dex, RAW, say remove a model. Not remove model that failed test.

 

So if one want to play strictly RAW, then by RAW, remove a model.

 

Playing strictly RAW means, intent and logic don't matter much if the rule is clear. The rule is clear and the rule is not inconsistent. Model take initiative test. For each test failed, remove a model. Nothing inconsistent there.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAW for a mini taking a Charcateristic test, is it's *that* mini that takes the test, and therefore suffers whatever outcome of said test.

[Angelis Mortis]

I wasn't the authoer of al those quotes. ;)

 

There is no rules for that way? I presume by that way, you're referring to "remove a model as casualty", which is the rule for warp rift.

 

No. For majority 'I' tests.

 

I agree. The IC example was to show the illogic of the argument that when the dex rule say "unit take take", that it must translate into "model take test". Please allow me to elaborate.

 

Would we all agree the dex is very clear in its wording: "The target unit must take an initiative test" means "unit", not model?

 

Would we all agree the BRB has no rules for how "unit" take initiative test?

 

So what is left is for us sport to determine how to play unit take test.

 

One can go strictly RAW. By going strictly RAW, the rule only allows for model to take test. OK. Individual model take test. BRB p8 detail how model take characteristic test and how it pass/fail them. It say nothing about how to apply the result of the pass/fail of the test. That's up to the dex. The dex, RAW, say remove a model. Not remove model that failed test.

 

So if one want to play strictly RAW, then by RAW, remove a model.

 

Playing strictly RAW means, intent and logic don't matter much if the rule is clear. The rule is clear and the rule is not inconsistent. Model take initiative test. For each test failed, remove a model. Nothing inconsistent there.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAW for a mini taking a Charcateristic test, is it's *that* mini that takes the test, and therefore suffers whatever outcome of said test.

 

Agreed in entirety.

[Something Wycked]

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAW for a mini taking a Charcateristic test, is it's *that* mini that takes the test, and therefore suffers whatever outcome of said test.

Yes, however, the RAW assumes that the mini making the characteristic test has been specified. Warp Rift does not do that. It applies hits to a squad the same way a normal flamer applies hits to a squad; it is only the effects of the hits that are different.

[Gentlemanloser]

Exactly why I changed my original opinion. :)

 

We assign the hits/test as per number touched by the template.

 

After that, it's BRB for characteristics tests. No majority rolls, or rolling on the high stat and removing the lowest.

[Angelis Mortis]

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAW for a mini taking a Charcateristic test, is it's *that* mini that takes the test, and therefore suffers whatever outcome of said test.

Yes, however, the RAW assumes that the mini making the characteristic test has been specified. Warp Rift does not do that. It applies hits to a squad the same way a normal flamer applies hits to a squad; it is only the effects of the hits that are different.

 

 

Thats the point though, its assigns hits, not wounds. Hits are not distributed, wounds are.

[Something Wycked]

Thats the point though, its assigns hits, not wounds. Hits are not distributed, wounds are.

You're right, that is the point. How are hits not distributed when you use a weapon that doesn't inflict wounds? Especially when the rule for this weapon states that the unit suffers the hits, not the models?

[Grimtooth]

Bahleted.

[CheezeFezt]

I wasn't the authoer of al those quotes. :(

 

My apology. Quoted the wrong G man. I believe those quotes were from Grey Mage.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAW for a mini taking a Charcateristic test, is it's *that* mini that takes the test, and therefore suffers whatever outcome of said test.

 

No such stipulation exists the requires the model that take the test suffer/enjoy the result of the test. BRB p8 simply provide rules for how to take the test (roll D6) and how to pass/fail it (pass if roll lower than characteristic, always fail on 6, always fail if characteristic is 0).

 

As my argument above goes, if one goes by RAW, RAW say remove a model, not remove model that failed the test.

 

If one goes by RAI, the overarching rule is unit take test with zero proviso for individuality. Again, no sniping.

[Grey Mage]

.... Okay, I rest my case. Thanks for proving my point, Grey. lol... If you were in agreement from the beginning, why didn't you just say so? What you said is exactly what I was arguing for.

Sorry, it looked like you were trying to say to use some kind of average initiative to test on and to remove random models based on those tests.

 

Grey, you'll have to explain what your on about when it comes to Blood Angels, im not familiar with there specific rule set. Hard to rebudle if you dont provide specific examples :D

The blood chalice rules- as used by sanguinairy priests- give units within 6" of the bearer furious charge and feel no pain.

 

Furious Charge: "Models with this skill..."

 

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability...."

 

Not "Units with this rule....". The chalice doesnt give models within 6", or models who are members of units within 6", these rules. They give the rules to the unit.

 

The poster above who stated furious charge is a unit rule perhaps has not read this rule recently, and is simply incorrect.

 

I'd also point out that the only reference in the power to Unit is the reference to Target Unit, then it says take a test for each model hit. The fact that they are used in the same sentence is what confuses the issue.

 

That is actually an erroneous statement. the rule says, and has been stated several times now, "The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed". it is not two sentences. it does not say 1 thing then go on to say the 2nd. it is 1 complete sentence and should be treated as such. it does NOT say to take a test for each model hit. it says the UNIT must take a test for each model hit. that is a very specific difference. your way infers that each model hit by the template is taking the test, while the rule says the unit as a whole takes the test, the number of times a model is hit (X tests for X models). it also says "one model is removed " not "that model is removed" or "the model who failed the test is removed" or "models under the template are removed"

Its not erroneous- I said it was a single sentence as well, in the quote you provided- its very straight forward.

 

It says to apply the affect to the unit- cool, check.

It says that an initiative test needs to be taken, and unless passed the model is removed- great.

 

Problem: Units cannot take initiative tests. Units do not have profiles. Models take tests on their profiles.

 

 

this is not a new way of doing things, this same principle applies for wounding and armour saves, as you have said yourself Grey. Your forgetting the fact that this is a template attack, the rules of which are very specific. the owning player does NOT have to remove the models under the template when removing casualties, they may pick any model in the unit. where in Warp Rift does it say anything about removing models under the template? if it doesn't you are infering a rule that currently does not exist, that also is in violation of a rule that does.

Taking an initiative test on a unit is certainly new. Wounding is different- its not a characteristic test, and the rules for wounding are clearly stated.

 

However, your right- the models need not be taken from under the template. Never once have I said they have to.

 

 

as has been stated, there is currently no rule specificly for units taking characteristics tests in general. therefore you must use the basic rules and the rules in the codex to figure out what happens. adding words or interpreting what you think should happen isn't the way to go about it. until someone can show me a specific example of unit-wide characteristic tests preferably, relating to templates, that says you take the tests for models under the template, you are simply creating a new rule. o and if you want to say that you have to assign the I test to individual models as if they were wounds, thats fine. the rules of the template state the owning player may assign the wounds to ANYONE in the unit hit by the template, not just those under it. Game, Blouses ^_^

Im not creating any new rules. Nor am I saying what you seem to think Im saying.

 

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

The unit, having had X members take the test, has successfully taken X tests. So this part of the rule is satisfied.

 

The model(s) have taken the required test(s) in their proper initiatives. This is pursuant to the BRB rules- that the GK notably does not explicitly override.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed, or resulting- no I 6 models removed for I 3 saves, no I 4 models protected by I 5 bodygaurds. Life goes on smoothly.

 

And what about shirts?

[synack]

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

The unit, having had X members take the test, has successfully taken X tests. So this part of the rule is satisfied.

 

The model(s) have taken the required test(s) in their proper initiatives. This is pursuant to the BRB rules- that the GK notably does not explicitly override.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed, or resulting- no I 6 models removed for I 3 saves, no I 4 models protected by I 5 bodygaurds. Life goes on smoothly.

 

This is how I see it.

[RedemptionNL]

Don't have the BRB here at work, but doesn't Sweeping Advance also use the (mayority) Initiative value of the unit? Or is it specifically typed in the Sweeping Advance rule which Initiative value to use?

[Grey Mage]

Its specific to sweeping advance- wich isnt an initiative test anyways.

[Angelis Mortis]

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

The unit, having had X members take the test, has successfully taken X tests. So this part of the rule is satisfied.

 

The model(s) have taken the required test(s) in their proper initiatives. This is pursuant to the BRB rules- that the GK notably does not explicitly override.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed, or resulting- no I 6 models removed for I 3 saves, no I 4 models protected by I 5 bodygaurds. Life goes on smoothly.

 

This is how I see it.

 

Agreed in entirety again. :D

[KnowThyEnemy]

your right Grey, i DID think you were saying something different :D

and the way you described it is the same way wound allocation works, except now its a hit being allocated. and instead of an armour save and trying to be above that value, its an initiative test and trying to be below it. potato tomato ;)

 

the use of the word unit still lends support to a majority initiative test, so hopefully this is in the FAQ to clear it up. my main concern was to prevent sniping of characters or models under the template( a la JotWW), which i believe was implied by some earlier posts (if not, ive wasted A LOT of time typing <_< ). either way, majority I for the squad or individual I tests per assigned hit, would be acceptable to me in-game but its yet another discussion that has to occur prior to the game. seems like we GK players would become Master Debaters ( :P )

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

I wasn't the authoer of al those quotes. ;)

 

There is no rules for that way? I presume by that way, you're referring to "remove a model as casualty", which is the rule for warp rift.

 

No. For majority 'I' tests.

 

I agree. The IC example was to show the illogic of the argument that when the dex rule say "unit take take", that it must translate into "model take test". Please allow me to elaborate.

 

Would we all agree the dex is very clear in its wording: "The target unit must take an initiative test" means "unit", not model?

 

Would we all agree the BRB has no rules for how "unit" take initiative test?

 

So what is left is for us sport to determine how to play unit take test.

 

One can go strictly RAW. By going strictly RAW, the rule only allows for model to take test. OK. Individual model take test. BRB p8 detail how model take characteristic test and how it pass/fail them. It say nothing about how to apply the result of the pass/fail of the test. That's up to the dex. The dex, RAW, say remove a model. Not remove model that failed test.

 

So if one want to play strictly RAW, then by RAW, remove a model.

 

Playing strictly RAW means, intent and logic don't matter much if the rule is clear. The rule is clear and the rule is not inconsistent. Model take initiative test. For each test failed, remove a model. Nothing inconsistent there.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAW for a mini taking a Charcateristic test, is it's *that* mini that takes the test, and therefore suffers whatever outcome of said test.

 

Agreed in entirety.

 

Agree mostly, disagree in part.

 

.... Okay, I rest my case. Thanks for proving my point, Grey. lol... If you were in agreement from the beginning, why didn't you just say so? What you said is exactly what I was arguing for.

Sorry, it looked like you were trying to say to use some kind of average initiative to test on and to remove random models based on those tests.

 

Grey, you'll have to explain what your on about when it comes to Blood Angels, im not familiar with there specific rule set. Hard to rebudle if you dont provide specific examples :)

The blood chalice rules- as used by sanguinairy priests- give units within 6" of the bearer furious charge and feel no pain.

 

Furious Charge: "Models with this skill..."

 

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability...."

 

Not "Units with this rule....". The chalice doesnt give models within 6", or models who are members of units within 6", these rules. They give the rules to the unit.

 

The poster above who stated furious charge is a unit rule perhaps has not read this rule recently, and is simply incorrect.

 

I'd also point out that the only reference in the power to Unit is the reference to Target Unit, then it says take a test for each model hit. The fact that they are used in the same sentence is what confuses the issue.

 

That is actually an erroneous statement. the rule says, and has been stated several times now, "The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed". it is not two sentences. it does not say 1 thing then go on to say the 2nd. it is 1 complete sentence and should be treated as such. it does NOT say to take a test for each model hit. it says the UNIT must take a test for each model hit. that is a very specific difference. your way infers that each model hit by the template is taking the test, while the rule says the unit as a whole takes the test, the number of times a model is hit (X tests for X models). it also says "one model is removed " not "that model is removed" or "the model who failed the test is removed" or "models under the template are removed"

Its not erroneous- I said it was a single sentence as well, in the quote you provided- its very straight forward.

 

It says to apply the affect to the unit- cool, check.

It says that an initiative test needs to be taken, and unless passed the model is removed- great.

 

Problem: Units cannot take initiative tests. Units do not have profiles. Models take tests on their profiles.

 

 

this is not a new way of doing things, this same principle applies for wounding and armour saves, as you have said yourself Grey. Your forgetting the fact that this is a template attack, the rules of which are very specific. the owning player does NOT have to remove the models under the template when removing casualties, they may pick any model in the unit. where in Warp Rift does it say anything about removing models under the template? if it doesn't you are infering a rule that currently does not exist, that also is in violation of a rule that does.

Taking an initiative test on a unit is certainly new. Wounding is different- its not a characteristic test, and the rules for wounding are clearly stated.

 

However, your right- the models need not be taken from under the template. Never once have I said they have to.

 

 

as has been stated, there is currently no rule specificly for units taking characteristics tests in general. therefore you must use the basic rules and the rules in the codex to figure out what happens. adding words or interpreting what you think should happen isn't the way to go about it. until someone can show me a specific example of unit-wide characteristic tests preferably, relating to templates, that says you take the tests for models under the template, you are simply creating a new rule. o and if you want to say that you have to assign the I test to individual models as if they were wounds, thats fine. the rules of the template state the owning player may assign the wounds to ANYONE in the unit hit by the template, not just those under it. Game, Blouses :)

Im not creating any new rules. Nor am I saying what you seem to think Im saying.

 

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

The unit, having had X members take the test, has successfully taken X tests. So this part of the rule is satisfied.

 

The model(s) have taken the required test(s) in their proper initiatives. This is pursuant to the BRB rules- that the GK notably does not explicitly override.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed, or resulting- no I 6 models removed for I 3 saves, no I 4 models protected by I 5 bodygaurds. Life goes on smoothly.

 

And what about shirts?

 

Changed my mind. Agree with the above.

[CheezeFezt]

Furious Charge: "Models with this skill..."

 

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability...."

 

Not "Units with this rule....".

 

The poster above who stated furious charge is a unit rule perhaps has not read this rule recently, and is simply incorrect.

 

I believe I quoted the section under "Special Rule" saying special rules are for unit (I'm at work, so I'll quote it when I get home. Unless the mod is sick of the silly sniping from other posters and just nuke this thread). It then goes on to talk about special rule with * (eg if a unit with a special rule containing an * is joined by an IC without it, the unit lose it). It doesn't say models within a unit lose it.

 

I understand the wording within each special rule may refer to individual models, but special rules are unit rules. The "model" reference within each special rules is simply shorthand for "model within unit".

 

Under the unit composition of the army list, they list the special rule for that unit. They don't list special rules under each individual model within that unit. IC is a unit himself, just as there are plenty of instances of single model unit. So the fact that IC has a special rules doesn't mean model get the special rule. It simply means unit, including single model one, get those rules.

 

If you believe only model get special rules, please find instance of some models within a unit having a special rules whereas other model within the same unit don't. Please remember that single model unit is still a unit.

 

The chalice doesnt give models within 6", or models who are members of units within 6", these rules. They give the rules to the unit.

 

The chalice granting a "unit" a special rule is consistent with the BRB.

 

Problem: Units cannot take initiative tests. Units do not have profiles.

 

I agree. I stated the same many time. There are no rules in the BRB for how unit take tests. Regardless, the dex say "unit take initiative test", not model.

 

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

 

Agree

 

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

 

If one want to play strictly RAW, ok. However, one can argue for mass rolling. I believe the mass rolling rule is generic (I'll quote it when I get home from work). So if I have a group of model with the same initiative, I can mass roll X dice at that initiative.

 

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

Nope. If you want to play strictly RAW, then RAW "For each test that is failed, remove one model as casualty." I may remove any model within the unit.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

Please quote the BRB to support the assertion that result of the test must be applied to the model taking the test. It doesn't exists.

 

Furthermore, if one does mass rolling (assuming mass rolling apply to characteristic test), then one can simply remove model from that group.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed

 

I'll rephrase your reasoning. Dex say "unit" does blah. BRB does not provide info for how "unit" does blah. BRB only has info for how "model" does blah. Re-interpret Dex to say "model" does blah.

 

Is this a fair statement of your reasoning for warp rift?

 

 

If yes, then please explain how Blood Chalice work. Blood Chalice said "unit" within x distance gain blah. BRB does not provide info for how to determine "unit" within x distance. BRB only has info for how to measure "model" within x distance. So using the same argument as the warp rift, then Blood Chalice only grant "model" within x distance blah. Is this how everyone play Blood Chalice?

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Furious Charge: "Models with this skill..."

 

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability...."

 

Not "Units with this rule....".

 

The poster above who stated furious charge is a unit rule perhaps has not read this rule recently, and is simply incorrect.

 

I believe I quoted the section under "Special Rule" saying special rules are for unit (I'm at work, so I'll quote it when I get home. Unless the mod is sick of the silly sniping from other posters and just nuke this thread). It then goes on to talk about special rule with * (eg if a unit with a special rule containing an * is joined by an IC without it, the unit lose it). It doesn't say models within a unit lose it.

 

I understand the wording within each special rule may refer to individual models, but special rules are unit rules. The "model" reference within each special rules is simply shorthand for "model within unit".

 

Under the unit composition of the army list, they list the special rule for that unit. They don't list special rules under each individual model within that unit. IC is a unit himself, just as there are plenty of instances of single model unit. So the fact that IC has a special rules doesn't mean model get the special rule. It simply means unit, including single model one, get those rules.

 

If you believe only model get special rules, please find instance of some models within a unit having a special rules whereas other model within the same unit don't. Please remember that single model unit is still a unit.

 

The chalice doesnt give models within 6", or models who are members of units within 6", these rules. They give the rules to the unit.

 

The chalice granting a "unit" a special rule is consistent with the BRB.

 

Problem: Units cannot take initiative tests. Units do not have profiles.

 

I agree. I stated the same many time. There are no rules in the BRB for how unit take tests. Regardless, the dex say "unit take initiative test", not model.

 

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

 

Agree

 

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

 

If one want to play strictly RAW, ok. However, one can argue for mass rolling. I believe the mass rolling rule is generic (I'll quote it when I get home from work). So if I have a group of model with the same initiative, I can mass roll X dice at that initiative.

 

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

Nope. If you want to play strictly RAW, then RAW "For each test that is failed, remove one model as casualty." I may remove any model within the unit.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

Please quote the BRB to support the assertion that result of the test must be applied to the model taking the test. It doesn't exists.

 

Furthermore, if one does mass rolling (assuming mass rolling apply to characteristic test), then one can simply remove model from that group.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed

 

I'll rephrase your reasoning. Dex say "unit" does blah. BRB does not provide info for how "unit" does blah. BRB only has info for how "model" does blah. Re-interpret Dex to say "model" does blah.

 

Is this a fair statement of your reasoning for warp rift?

 

 

If yes, then please explain how Blood Chalice work. Blood Chalice said "unit" within x distance gain blah. BRB does not provide info for how to determine "unit" within x distance. BRB only has info for how to measure "model" within x distance. So using the same argument as the warp rift, then Blood Chalice only grant "model" within x distance blah. Is this how everyone play Blood Chalice?

 

Interesting.

[Angelis Mortis]

Furious Charge: "Models with this skill..."

 

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability...."

 

Not "Units with this rule....".

 

The poster above who stated furious charge is a unit rule perhaps has not read this rule recently, and is simply incorrect.

 

I believe I quoted the section under "Special Rule" saying special rules are for unit (I'm at work, so I'll quote it when I get home. Unless the mod is sick of the silly sniping from other posters and just nuke this thread). It then goes on to talk about special rule with * (eg if a unit with a special rule containing an * is joined by an IC without it, the unit lose it). It doesn't say models within a unit lose it.

 

I understand the wording within each special rule may refer to individual models, but special rules are unit rules. The "model" reference within each special rules is simply shorthand for "model within unit".

 

Under the unit composition of the army list, they list the special rule for that unit. They don't list special rules under each individual model within that unit. IC is a unit himself, just as there are plenty of instances of single model unit. So the fact that IC has a special rules doesn't mean model get the special rule. It simply means unit, including single model one, get those rules.

 

If you believe only model get special rules, please find instance of some models within a unit having a special rules whereas other model within the same unit don't. Please remember that single model unit is still a unit.

 

The chalice doesnt give models within 6", or models who are members of units within 6", these rules. They give the rules to the unit.

 

The chalice granting a "unit" a special rule is consistent with the BRB.

 

Problem: Units cannot take initiative tests. Units do not have profiles.

 

I agree. I stated the same many time. There are no rules in the BRB for how unit take tests. Regardless, the dex say "unit take initiative test", not model.

 

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

 

Agree

 

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

 

If one want to play strictly RAW, ok. However, one can argue for mass rolling. I believe the mass rolling rule is generic (I'll quote it when I get home from work). So if I have a group of model with the same initiative, I can mass roll X dice at that initiative.

 

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

Nope. If you want to play strictly RAW, then RAW "For each test that is failed, remove one model as casualty." I may remove any model within the unit.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

Please quote the BRB to support the assertion that result of the test must be applied to the model taking the test. It doesn't exists.

 

Furthermore, if one does mass rolling (assuming mass rolling apply to characteristic test), then one can simply remove model from that group.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed

 

I'll rephrase your reasoning. Dex say "unit" does blah. BRB does not provide info for how "unit" does blah. BRB only has info for how "model" does blah. Re-interpret Dex to say "model" does blah.

 

Is this a fair statement of your reasoning for warp rift?

 

 

If yes, then please explain how Blood Chalice work. Blood Chalice said "unit" within x distance gain blah. BRB does not provide info for how to determine "unit" within x distance. BRB only has info for how to measure "model" within x distance. So using the same argument as the warp rift, then Blood Chalice only grant "model" within x distance blah. Is this how everyone play Blood Chalice?

 

Interesting.

 

Agreed.

[DeathKorpsman]

your right Grey, i DID think you were saying something different :)

and the way you described it is the same way wound allocation works, except now its a hit being allocated. and instead of an armour save and trying to be above that value, its an initiative test and trying to be below it. potato tomato :P

 

the use of the word unit still lends support to a majority initiative test, so hopefully this is in the FAQ to clear it up. my main concern was to prevent sniping of characters or models under the template( a la JotWW), which i believe was implied by some earlier posts (if not, ive wasted A LOT of time typing :P ). either way, majority I for the squad or individual I tests per assigned hit, would be acceptable to me in-game but its yet another discussion that has to occur prior to the game. seems like we GK players would become Master Debaters ( :) )

I don't think anyone was arguing for character sniping (at least after the first few posts). Grey Mage's listing of the way Warp Rift works according to the rules is the way I was trying to explain it, as well as others, but he did a better job of it. Character sniping wouldn't be possible if the unit used the rules for Characteristic Tests, while at the same time using the hit allocation rules from the power. Since the opposing player gets to choose which models test, regardless of what is under the template, character sniping would be impossible. The opposing player could still allocate to an IC if they wished, but if that model fails the test then that model is removed in accordance with the rules for taking Characteristic Tests. Until an FAQ comes out to either 1) reinforce those rules, 2) create an entirely new system for units to roll Characteristics Tests, or 3) in typical fashion only answer the questions nobody was asking we are left with the RAW from the BRB and Codex which Grey Mage has shown can work entirely in concert with each other.

[Grey Mage]

Furious Charge: "Models with this skill..."

 

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability...."

 

Not "Units with this rule....".

 

The poster above who stated furious charge is a unit rule perhaps has not read this rule recently, and is simply incorrect.

 

I believe I quoted the section under "Special Rule" saying special rules are for unit (I'm at work, so I'll quote it when I get home. Unless the mod is sick of the silly sniping from other posters and just nuke this thread). It then goes on to talk about special rule with * (eg if a unit with a special rule containing an * is joined by an IC without it, the unit lose it). It doesn't say models within a unit lose it.

 

I understand the wording within each special rule may refer to individual models, but special rules are unit rules. The "model" reference within each special rules is simply shorthand for "model within unit".

 

Under the unit composition of the army list, they list the special rule for that unit. They don't list special rules under each individual model within that unit. IC is a unit himself, just as there are plenty of instances of single model unit. So the fact that IC has a special rules doesn't mean model get the special rule. It simply means unit, including single model one, get those rules.

 

If you believe only model get special rules, please find instance of some models within a unit having a special rules whereas other model within the same unit don't. Please remember that single model unit is still a unit.

Sure, not a problem. Rending on Khorne Bloodletters is a great example, or how about stubborn on C:SWs Arjac? Its not a common occurence, but its there.

 

Some special rules effect entire units- like stealth- others effect only models- like furious charge. They list the rules that are common for all the models in the unit under the profile- wich also isnt unit wide, as youll notice seargents and other 'special' members will often have their own listing.

 

The fact is a model is a model and a unit is a unit. A unit can consist of one model- but that doesnt make the two terms interchangeable at will.

 

The chalice doesnt give models within 6", or models who are members of units within 6", these rules. They give the rules to the unit.

 

The chalice granting a "unit" a special rule is consistent with the BRB.

 

No, it really isnt. As the 'unit' isnt able to use the rule RAW.

 

 

Problem: Units cannot take initiative tests. Units do not have profiles.

 

I agree. I stated the same many time. There are no rules in the BRB for how unit take tests. Regardless, the dex say "unit take initiative test", not model.

If theres no rules for how to do it the options are we find a way that actually works with the rules, or the power is useless. Why make up new rules when the current ones are quite functional- as Ive shown.

 

This is how it goes:

- The power goes off.

- The template is placed and models are counted. Known as value X

 

Agree

Glad to hear it.

 

- The player then selects X models and makes initiative tests for each one in turn.

 

If one want to play strictly RAW, ok. However, one can argue for mass rolling. I believe the mass rolling rule is generic (I'll quote it when I get home from work). So if I have a group of model with the same initiative, I can mass roll X dice at that initiative.

"fast rolling" is an optional, but reccommended roll- when it wont change anything, such as grouping similar armor saves together. So as long as all the models your rolling for are identical, your opponent isnt likely to mind.

 

- Failed saves result in those specific models being removed.

 

Nope. If you want to play strictly RAW, then RAW "For each test that is failed, remove one model as casualty." I may remove any model within the unit.

Sadly, no- since your rolling by model, as you are required to for I tests, you cant. Batch rolling is optional- and you *might* be allowed to.

 

The models are then removed if they fail their own tests. Again, as is pursuant to the core rules.

 

Please quote the BRB to support the assertion that result of the test must be applied to the model taking the test. It doesn't exists.

 

Furthermore, if one does mass rolling (assuming mass rolling apply to characteristic test), then one can simply remove model from that group.

Really? The key to your argument is that it doesnt say a failed roll must be applied to the model?

 

Lets look at the language of characteristic tests:

"During a battle, a model...."

"Note that if a 6 is rolled, then the model automatically fails the test..."

"Of course, if a model has to take a test for one of its characteristics with a value of 0, it automatically fails"

 

And before we go to leadership- the first sentence says "Tests made with the leadership characteristic (like morale checks) are different from other tests.

 

There simply isnt anything supporting the interaction of another model for a different models characteristic test, outside the very, very well covered leadership.

 

This results in no new rules needing to be created. It follows precident and the current rules structure. There are no shenanigans needed

 

I'll rephrase your reasoning. Dex say "unit" does blah. BRB does not provide info for how "unit" does blah. BRB only has info for how "model" does blah. Re-interpret Dex to say "model" does blah.

 

Is this a fair statement of your reasoning for warp rift?

No, Ive been quite clear- the unit as a whole takes the tests because the models in it have done so. Much like how any single model moving means the whole unit has moved, etc.

 

If yes, then please explain how Blood Chalice work. Blood Chalice said "unit" within x distance gain blah. BRB does not provide info for how to determine "unit" within x distance. BRB only has info for how to measure "model" within x distance. So using the same argument as the warp rift, then Blood Chalice only grant "model" within x distance blah. Is this how everyone play Blood Chalice?

Actually, the BRB does. On pg 3 no less- wich you would know if you had read the section on characteristics, units and models- wich is rather important dont you think?- as it says:

When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below.

 

Thats quite straightforward eh?

[CheezeFezt]

I stand corrected. Grey Mage is well-reasoned and his thought on gameplay well-thought out.

 

I just was uncomfortable "special" model (eg model with heavy weapon) can get hurt before the wound allocation. Would had prefer to be able to allocate "warp rift wound" like flamer. But that mechanism is convoluted and way outside the BRB. Grey Mage mechanism works well.

[DeathKorpsman]

I stand corrected. Grey Mage is well-reasoned and his thought on gameplay well-thought out.

 

I just was uncomfortable "special" model (eg model with heavy weapon) can get hurt before the wound allocation. Would had prefer to be able to allocate "warp rift wound" like flamer. But that mechanism is convoluted and way outside the BRB. Grey Mage mechanism works well.

Special models and IC's still can't be picked out unless the controlling player wants to use them for the Characteristic Test. The only way to get a model to test against the controlling player's will is to cover the whole squad with the template, just as with a normal attack. Since hit allocation is at the discretion of the target unit's controlling player, sniping is impossible. It sort of works like normal wound allocation, but since wounds aren't being caused and Characteristic Tests are called for it is slightly different.

 

Grey Mage's breakdown rings truest of all the explanations I've seen thus far, and will definitely be the one I use when I play. The issue is nit picky enough that I doubt we'll see a reference to it in an FAQ, but that's fine since there is a logical way to use it within the rules.