Cleansing Flame

[Brother Casman]

Yeah, turned around that way, the rule makes more sense to me.

[Brother Valerius]

I think you guys are dead wrong that the rule is clear and unambiguous. The writing of the sentence can EASILY be read two ways. Nothing indicates that there is to be one singular roll of 4+, or if it is to be one for each model involved in the assault.

[breng77]

I think the big issue is that nothing else works by rolling 1 D6 to wound multiple things, so when you read the power (at least when I read it) you assume that it is one die per model.

[thade]

I think the big issue is that nothing else works by rolling 1 D6 to wound multiple things, so when you read the power (at least when I read it) you assume that it is one die per model.

I agree.

[Jacinda]

Just to throw in my vote:

To me it is clear; all enemy models must roll one die. All, as in each and every one must roll one die. Not just one squad. All enemy models involved must roll a die. Not one die for all; all of them roll a die to see what happens to them. At least that is how I see it.

 

Of course if I were on the recieving end I would go for the one die, one wound allocated somewhere among all the models reading ^.^

[Brother Valerius]

I think the big issue is that nothing else works by rolling 1 D6 to wound multiple things, so when you read the power (at least when I read it) you assume that it is one die per model.

 

That probably nudges the mind, but here's the other thing: in all but the most pedantic usage of the English language, "all models" is equivalent to "each model". It's not unreasonable to read "all models" as "each model", because the two terms have been mingled together enough to be practically interchangeable.

[thade]

In the case of a multi-assault (that is, one Purifier Squad charging more than one target) do they roll one d6 for all charged target-units? Or one for each? (Assuming it's a single d6 in the case of charging one unit.)

[Something Wycked]

In the case of a multi-assault (that is, one Purifier Squad charging more than one target) do they roll one d6 for all charged target-units? Or one for each? (Assuming it's a single d6 in the case of charging one unit.)

Well, by the original quote:

 

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

 

If there's a big long chain of multi-assaults that involves every model on the board, a single Purifier squad activates Cleansing Flame and rolls a single d6; on a 4+, every enemy model suffers a wound.

[thade]

In the case of a multi-assault (that is, one Purifier Squad charging more than one target) do they roll one d6 for all charged target-units? Or one for each? (Assuming it's a single d6 in the case of charging one unit.)

Well, by the original quote:

 

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

 

If there's a big long chain of multi-assaults that involves every model on the board, a single Purifier squad activates Cleansing Flame and rolls a single d6; on a 4+, every enemy model suffers a wound.

Yep. And...that's weird, haha. Allowed to be uncustomary - unique even - as it's a Psychic power - but it should've been worded much more clearly given what a tremendous exception to precedents it is.

[Something Wycked]

Thats the main issue I have with it. If they want it to be different and work differently than every other precedent, that's fine. Just make it more clear. On my first reading of the rule I, too, thought it said to roll a die for each model.

[thade]

Thats the main issue I have with it. If they want it to be different and work differently than every other precedent, that's fine. Just make it more clear. On my first reading of the rule I, too, thought it said to roll a die for each model.

It has so often been the case before, that I'm absolutely convinced they intended for it to be per-model. Just blows my mind they'd do something so exceptional without very strict clarifications, instead of this casual, quick, as-of-off-the-cuff description.

 

As an aside, I wonder how much of all of these errors come down to "edited for space". They should just trim stupid flavor text and fluff instead of the rules.

[Jacinda]

I don't see how you can assume one single roll and not assume one single wound. If it is one die for all enemy models it is one wound for all enemy models. If it is one wound for each enemy model it is one die for each enemy model. Anything else is applying a different standard to the two parts of the last half of the rule.

 

It clearly states one die and it clearly states one wound. The only debate should be does "ALL" = "EACH" or is it a singular whole. One die for ALL enemies to apply a wound to EACH enemy just does maintain a logical structure. You can not have it both ways in one sentence.

[Brother Valerius]

It clearly states one die and it clearly states one wound. The only debate should be does "ALL" = "EACH" or is it a singular whole. One die for ALL enemies to apply a wound to EACH enemy just does maintain a logical structure. You can not have it both ways in one sentence.

 

Well spotted, I hadn't seen that.

[thade]

This power can be used during the Assault phase.... If the Psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.

Let's say my Purifiers charge some Ork Boyz, and that they pass their test and successfully activate Cleansing Flame. I now roll a d6 and get a 5. Per the writing of this rule, "all enemy models that are part of the (this) assault suffer one wound." You are now trying to assert (if I'm not mistaken) that this means only a single wound is delivered to the Ork Boyz.

 

That's not so weird until you consider multiple assaults. Let's say my single unit of Purifiers charges not one, not two, but three separate tactical squads which are all (unfortunately for them) bunched together. The Purifiers pass their Psychic test; I roll a d6 and get a 6 (as is my custom). Now...where does that single wound go?

 

If it were the case that only a single, solitary wound was inflicted, this would definitely be qualified, as it's way out of the scope of any precedent we've ever seen. So, Jacinda, I can say you are definitely mistaken (if in fact I understand your post). I mean, there'd have to be some standard way of determining where that single wound fell; and it couldn't just be a d3 or something, as the number of engaged units could be even larger. Say, for instance, my Purifiers, Paladins, and Strike Squad all charge seven five-man tactical squads (combat squads!) and a Dev squad and an assault squad. What a mess. NOW my Purifiers pass their Psychic test, I roll a d6, get a 6 (as is my custom), and where does that wound go?

 

Actually, it's a lot of wounds. And by the writing of the rule, every single heretical marine that my righteous GK just charged get lit up (provided they are all in fact in this massive hog-pile of a multi-assault I've just conjured).

 

I would say that this ability is powerful enough.

[Something Wycked]

It clearly states one die and it clearly states one wound. The only debate should be does "ALL" = "EACH" or is it a singular whole. One die for ALL enemies to apply a wound to EACH enemy just does maintain a logical structure. You can not have it both ways in one sentence.

"all enemy models" - clear enough.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault" - also clear enough.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound" - If it said "all enemy units" I could understand where you are coming from- being one wound for each unit. However, it says all models- one wound for each model.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" - One wound for each model on one roll of 4+.

[Brother Valerius]

It clearly states one die and it clearly states one wound. The only debate should be does "ALL" = "EACH" or is it a singular whole. One die for ALL enemies to apply a wound to EACH enemy just does maintain a logical structure. You can not have it both ways in one sentence.

"all enemy models" - clear enough.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault" - also clear enough.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound" - If it said "all enemy units" I could understand where you are coming from- being one wound for each unit. However, it says all models- one wound for each model.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" - One wound for each model on one roll of 4+.

 

Nope. You cannot say that "all enemy models" means each model, and then say that it means all models at once. The argument hinges upon whether "all" means all or each, and whichever way you pick, that has to be consistent. So RAW is that either there is one wound period on one roll of 4+, or that there is a wound per model on a roll of 4+ per model.

[Something Wycked]

I don't see how it can be any clearer.

 

"the unit suffers a wound" - 1 wound.

"all models suffer a wound" - as many wounds as there are models.

[Brother Valerius]

I'm willing to interpret it that way, but it is NOT reasonable to interpret it that way if you include the logic that there is one single roll. If we're going to be right and proper pedantic (which we apparently are), to get the effect you mean (every model gets a wound), you need to word it in this way: "each model suffers a wound on a roll of 4+". But that destroys the argument that there is only one single roll, because now "on a roll of 4+" is modifying "each model".

 

It's inconsistent to argue that each model gets a wound with only a single roll. If you do that, you are interpreting the same word ("all") differently depending on which part of the sentence you are in.

[Something Wycked]

I agree with you about the illogical nature of it; I stated earlier that I initially read the RAW incorrectly, assuming one die for each model. It flies in the face of every other mechanic in 40k where each wound caused requires its own to-wound roll. It does. I'm not disputing that for a second. However, it is what it is.

 

If the Psychic test is passed, all enemy models... suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.

I'll be honest; I really don't understand the premise behind "all models suffer a wound on a die roll" equating to a single wound in total that Jacinda and yourself have put forward. The only time that makes sense to me is if there's only a single model to wound.

[Brother Valerius]

The problem is you're trying to interpret it both ways. "All models suffer one wound" means that there is one wound period. To be otherwise, it needs to say "each model suffers one wound". That is what the difference between "all models" and "each model" means. Once you establish that, you are left with a choice: "all models... on a roll of 4+" which means one singular roll, and "each model... on a roll of 4+" means one roll per model. The problem is, if you go with the "all models" interpretation, you only net one wound because that is what "all models suffer a wound" technically means. "All models suffer a wound" only means that each model gets a wound if you are interpreting the word "all" to mean "each", which breaks the only-one-roll argument.

[Something Wycked]

^_^ If that's true, that is some hardcore grammar technicality you're invoking.

[Brother Valerius]

Yes, it is a hardcore grammar technicality. But you're invoking the same one, just at a different point in the sentence, when you say that there is only one roll because of the "all models" language. That's my (and really, Jacinda's, because he said it first) point: the sword cuts both ways.

 

Mind you, I don't normally get into nitty-gritty stuff like this. I was perfectly happy to agree that it's an unclear rule and wait for a FAQ ruling, but Jacinda's point cannot be denied.

[Something Wycked]

Except that the two of you are picking on a different technicality; I'm not suggesting "all models" points towards one roll. That stems from this: "on a roll of 4+." That "a roll" is very, very singular.

[Brother Valerius]

It is only singular in a vacuum. In the context of a sentence, whether it grants one roll or multiple rolls depends on context. In this case, it modifies the earlier statement of "all models receive a wound". Depending on how the "all models" bit is parsed, "a roll" can mean one roll or many.

[thade]

Soooo...in the context of a multiple assault where the single Purifier squad engages six or more different units in one charge, which unit gets the wound?

 

...

 

The stance that "only one wound is delivered" falls apart there, so I think it's safest to assume they do in fact mean "each model".