Cleansing Flame

[Morticon]

So, there's already an old topic here ->

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...0flame&st=0

 

dealing with multiple cleansing flames and also assigning of wounds, which I'm not particularly interested in.

 

 

What I am interested in is that there was no real resolution and that is for a much more fundamental aspect of the power.

 

ie: How does this power actually work?!

 

 

 

There seems to still be debate on this when, to me, the wording is very simple.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" (C:GK pg 31)

 

The subject in this sentence is "all enemy models".

Additionally, the condition for the subject to be effected is singular - "a roll of 4+".

 

 

Is there any reason besides the inherent strength of this power and what we think should be the RAI that im missing here?!

 

(just to clarify the two camps are:

 

1: Roll a single d6, on a 4+ all enemy models in that assault suffer a wound.

vs.

2: Roll a d6 for every enemy model in that assault. On a 4+ each model rolled for suffers a wound.

 

Thoughts welcome!

[Morollan]

It really can be read either way. My first impression when I read it was option 2 though and I believe that is the way it is intended to operate.

 

If only GW employed editors...

[Questioner]

I would say number 2.

[thade]

I'm with Morollan, i.e. roll a d6 per model makes the most sense to me (as it's how virtually everything else works, Occam's Razor and all). However, there is some RAW support for the "single d6" camp. It's weird...but then, it is a psychic power.

 

Fluff-wise, it's roiling psychic flame that surrounds the charging unit; it would be random and omnipresent by nature. Doesn't make sense to me (given that assumption) that it would be an "all or nothing" kind of power. Thus, I very strongly believe it's per model (and not strictly one d6).

 

In the absence of clear wording or a fix in the FAQ, house/club rule it for now. Whatever your gaming group feels best with is what I'd go with.

 

It's off-topic slightly, but in the same vein: we all came to a consensus on here recently regarding a unit of Psyker henchmen counting as a single Psyker for the purposes of the Culexus's weapon, i.e. he gets +1 for the unit and not +(the number of Psyker henchmen models in the unit). Also, there's the issue of whether The Summoning is in fact "teleporting" a unit or not, and whether the word "teleport" holds any bearing on RAW...something else various clubs/groups are ruling on differently and here we settled on the "RAW says no, but it's kind of dumb". This book needs a few Amendments I think. :tu:

[Morticon]

It really can be read either way.

 

May I ask how?

 

Because, the subject of the sentence is quite clear.

[Morticon]

I'm with Morollan, i.e. roll a d6 per model makes the most sense to me (as it's how virtually everything else works, Occam's Razor and all). However, there is some RAW support for the "single d6" camp. It's weird...but then, it is a psychic power.

 

Fluff-wise, it's roiling psychic flame that surrounds the charging unit; it would be random and omnipresent by nature. Doesn't make sense to me (given that assumption) that it would be an "all or nothing" kind of power. Thus, I very strongly believe it's per model (and not strictly one d6).

 

In the absence of clear wording or a fix in the FAQ, house/club rule it for now. Whatever your gaming group feels best with is what I'd go with.

 

But, matey, its not about making sense or whats simplest. It's what's written.(Clearly from what I can see).

 

Im of the belief there is an entirety of RAW support- not "some" for the single d6, and I'm of the belief that there is no support for RAW for multiple d6.

 

Again, if I'm missing something linguistically, Im keen to be shown (since I think a single d6 wounding 30 orks is hella Over Powered).

[Dan VK]

If only GW employed editors...

... we probably wouldn't have so much traffic in the +OR+. ;)

 

In all seriousness, though, grammatically "suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" modifies "all enemy models that are part of the same assault." The rule directly states option 1. I don't like it and think it's a mistake, but that's the RAW. ;) Does anyone know of "on a roll of X" modifying multiple targets and meaning option 2?

[Morticon]

Dan VK - you and I are in EXACTLY the same boat as far as thoughts about that power.

Linguistically thats what is written and it's very clear and unambiguous.

I think camp 2 is often a result of us reading what we'd like it to be as opposed to what it actually is.'

 

Can anyone offer any other rules/grammar based thoughts on this beyond it's inherent "wrongness"/RAI ?

[thade]

Um, see the Nighthawks quote in my sig. (Follow it, if you like; you get to see me get pwned there.)

 

When the JotWW "theoretical template" falls across the table, it's per-model that the check is made. When Warp Rift or the Chaos Tzeentch-flamer template hits the table, it's per-model that the checks are made. RAI, I think it's pretty clear to me that Option 2 is what they were gunning for. I can't comment on the grammar. ;) Because, well, I haven't had grammar since grade school and I think in C/C++ now.

[Dan VK]

This upsets me very much, but it is unambiguously the RAW. There is no other way to interpret the statement grammatically.

If it helps, "on a roll of 4+ all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound" is identical to "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" is morphemically identical.

[Morticon]

This upsets me very much, but it is unambiguously the RAW. There is no other way to interpret the statement grammatically.

If it helps, "on a roll of 4+ all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound" is identical to "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" is morphemically identical.

 

;)

Didn't think about that. Good call.

 

I think what annoys me is local players telling me, I've "ruleslawyered" this when its very, very clearly straightforward and actually requires poor reading comprehension to interpret the other way.

 

Thanks for the input all!

[Dan VK]

Um, see the Nighthawks quote in my sig. (Follow it, if you like; you get to see me get pwned there.)

 

When the JotWW "theoretical template" falls across the table, it's per-model that the check is made. When Warp Rift or the Chaos Tzeentch-flamer template hits the table, it's per-model that the checks are made. RAI, I think it's pretty clear to me that Option 2 is what they were gunning for. I can't comment on the grammar. ;) Because, well, I haven't had grammar since grade school and I think in C/C++ now.

Nighthawks has a very valid point, but this is not an ambiguous statement or something the rules do not cover.

 

Also, Jaws of the World Wolf specifies that each model takes an initiative test and the rules for template weapons in the BRB specify that the player must roll To Wound for each model. Cleansing Flame does not include such a distinction.

 

 

[EDIT: Speaking of grammar, proper pluralization is important...]

[thade]

You make good points. Looks like it's Option 1 after all.

[Dan VK]

I think what annoys me is local players telling me, I've "ruleslawyered" this when its very, very clearly straightforward and actually requires poor reading comprehension to interpret the other way.

Pardon me for getting ;), but it sounds like you and your local players have different play styles. I agree that the RAI are probably option 2; that is where the precedent is (albeit with different language) and what I want the rule to be. It is certainly how I will be playing. To be honest, I would be offended if I faced that rule in a friendly game. RAI is not the purview of the +OR+, though.

[thade]

RAI is not the purview of the +OR+, though.

Actually, I think it kind of is, though we're all resistant to admitting it. ;) We definitely all agree that - when RAW is clear and without contradiction - it's the way to go. There are a lot of examples where it's so wonky however that RAI is the only way to fall. We kind of need it RAI in many cases, considering that GW will give us rules that are incomplete, in conflict, ambiguous, or all of the above.

 

I firmly support Option 2; I can't dispute the grammatical-grounding for Option 1, however.

[Seahawk]

Grammatically, it's so very clearly #1. But then, it IS a poorly written codex... ;)

 

This happens far too much, in every book, and it makes me assume that GW actually doesn't have any editors. I know I've given a quote from each book that, when changing or adding/subtracting a single word, it makes all the difference and ever so clear what they "meant" to say. For instance:

 

- "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" (original)

- "each enemy model that is part of the same assault suffers one wound on a roll of 4+" (modified)

Bam, now it's #2 and what we all "feel" it should be. But alas, with no editors we get the former and thus are required to play by #1.

[breng77]

Again, if I'm missing something linguistically, Im keen to be shown (since I think a single d6 wounding 30 orks is hella Over Powered).

 

I actually think rolling separately is far more powerful, as the roll 1D6 amounts to 50% of the time this power does nothing. The other 50% it is awesome, but it becomes far less dependable with a 1d6 roll. It ammount to I would rather dependably cause 15 wounds then risk doing 0 or 30. The times you do 30 against orks it is auto win (You will kill on average all but 5 (or 5 and a NOb) ). The rest of the time you will kill 0 (which actually when you consider failing the psychic test will happen more often then doing 30 wounds)

[Morollan]

Reluctantly I have to agree. Why the hell wasn't this in the FAQ.

[Dan VK]

RAI is not the purview of the +OR+, though.

Actually, I think it kind of is, though we're all resistant to admitting it. ;) We definitely all agree that - when RAW is clear and without contradiction - it's the way to go. There are a lot of examples where it's so wonky however that RAI is the only way to fall. We kind of need it RAI in many cases, considering that GW will give us rules that are incomplete, in conflict, ambiguous, or all of the above.

I disagree. Once RAI are included in the discussion what we say ceases to matter. Obviously we can sway other peoples' opinions with our own, but there is no authority without demonstrable evidence. In the absence of clear RAW the rule is unusable without a house rule, in which case GW needs to correct the wording with errata, or at least clarify how it's played with a FAQ.

 

TL;DR - Without RAW we're sharing how we want the game to be played, not how the rules state the game is played. The +OR+ is not a homebrew forum; the forum topic is literally Official Rules.

[thade]

Reluctantly I have to agree. Why the hell wasn't this in the FAQ.

Or Psyker henchment + Culexus? Or Summoning/Teleport Homers? There's some conflict with the Turbo-Penetrator rounds that I'm forgetting too. My hope is that if we keep up our discussions/mentions of them, they'll get noticed and addressed in the next FAQ update. Call me superstitious, but I remember the last SM FAQ update seemed to address just about everything we'd been wrangling with on the OR boards coming up to it. ;)

[thade]

TL;DR - Without RAW we're sharing how we want the game to be played, not how the rules state the game is played. The +OR+ is not a homebrew forum; the forum topic is literally Official Rules.

So what you're saying is...you're resistant. ;)

 

RAW isn't the end-all/be-all. Sometimes RAI isn't just "home brew"; sometimes, without it, we're at an utter loss as to how to do things. For instance, the fact that a single IC in TDA attached to a PA squad prevents them all from performing Sweeping Advance is something we accepted on a RAI-basis for a long time until it was - finally - very recently added to the FAQ. Or how about Calgar's God of War power and how it interacts with No Retreat! wounds?

 

Sorry to stray so far off-topic. <3

[Dan VK]

Grammatically, it's so very clearly #1. But then, it IS a poorly written codex... ;)

 

This happens far too much, in every book, and it makes me assume that GW actually doesn't have any editors. I know I've given a quote from each book that, when changing or adding/subtracting a single word, it makes all the difference and ever so clear what they "meant" to say.

I know multiple people who have offered, by letter, email, and in person, to provide their editing services free of charge. One even provided the standard non-payment contract that protects GW. They simply aren't interested.

 

For instance:

 

- "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" (original)

- "each enemy model that is part of the same assault suffers one wound on a roll of 4+" (modified)

Bam, now it's #2 and what we all "feel" it should be. But alas, with no editors we get the former and thus are required to play by #1.

Unfortunately 'all' and 'each' have the same effect, as does 'every'. GW is terrible for trying to distinguish 'each' as having additional meaning without including a glossary of terms. It really needs another sentence, like Jaws of the World Wolf, stating that they are individual attacks that automatically hit and rolls To Wound are made as normal.

 

Reluctantly I have to agree. Why the hell wasn't this in the FAQ.

That's a good :cuss: question. I feel that way about Shield of Sanguinius, too.

 

TL;DR - Without RAW we're sharing how we want the game to be played, not how the rules state the game is played. The +OR+ is not a homebrew forum; the forum topic is literally Official Rules.

So what you're saying is...you're resistant. ;)

 

RAW isn't the end-all/be-all. Sometimes RAI isn't just "home brew"; sometimes, without it, we're at an utter loss as to how to do things. For instance, the fact that a single IC in TDA attached to a PA squad prevents them all from performing Sweeping Advance is something we accepted on a RAI-basis for a long time until it was - finally - very recently added to the FAQ. Or how about Calgar's God of War power and how it interacts with No Retreat! wounds?

 

Sorry to stray so far off-topic. <3

It's less that I'm resistant and more that I'm of the opinion that it removes any reason to use logic to determine rules, first and foremost, above any and all other methods. Once evidence is no longer required Player A's ability to point to his codex and read the rule aloud to prove his point is trumped by Player B's knowledge of the fluff and ability to quote traditional rules. There is no authority in someone repeating what Gav Thorpe said in their supposed secret basement meeting. :rolleyes: You can't argue with what the rule unambiguously states.

 

Regarding GW supporting RAI arguments in FAQs, they can do that and I'm glad of it, but we do not write the rules. I am not saying that RAI doesn't effect how we play, but it should have no effect on what we tell other people when they ask what the rule literally states.

 

 

If I'm getting too far :to: I am always willing to move any discussion to messages. If there are no objections I will, as always, keep posting.

[thade]

I am not saying that RAI doesn't effect how we play, but it should have no effect on what we tell other people when they ask what the rule literally states.

This is where we differ. I feel that at times RAI is valuable information to offer players so they can reach their own conclusions. RAI is not always without evidence; precedents exist and can be cited. I did so myself above; despite different wording, similar effects do bare merit for consideration.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, mind you: RAW is the foundation we want. In practice, however, it isn't always sufficient. When GW rules writers are confused as to why we're confused because "it's always been that way", I think it's clear that they're not in this for a rigid, clear rule set. It is all we have to work with, and so when their failure to be clear clouds how things work, we're left to RAI.

[Brother Casman]

With respect to the OP, that's really badly worded. There's a part of me that wonders if someone could make the case that the power only deals one wound total, regardless of the number of enemy models. (Of course, that would make the ability rather underwhelming, but still).

[Dan VK]

With respect to the OP, that's really badly worded. There's a part of me that wonders if someone could make the case that the power only deals one wound total, regardless of the number of enemy models. (Of course, that would make the ability rather underwhelming, but still).

The rule is definitely poorly worded. I cannot imagine the developers intended it to work in the manner the rule dictates. I, too, thought it might deal a single wound, but "one wound" is suffered by "all enemy models". The rule looks very clear to me, even if it is unorthodox.