Banshees/Quickening versus Unwieldy

[Gentlemanloser]

Branching off from;

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...5&start=175

 

How do the Codex set values of I10 from Banshee Masks or the GK Quickening Power marry to the set value of I1 from Unwieldy?

 

Codex trumps BRB?

 

On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence

 

So a Unit of GKT all armed with Nemesis Daemonhammers attack at I10, if they are subject to the Quickening from a Librarian? Or on the turn they charge, a unit of Banshees modelled with Power Axes are S4, I10, AP2 killers of Terminators?

 

There's nothing I can find that states that the I1 set by Unwieldy trumps every other modifier.

 

So how do these work together?

[Aidoneus]

:lol:

 

I hate GW rule-writing.

[Gentlemanloser]

Autarch, Jetbike, Bnshee Mask, Power Axe. With a Jetbike Warlock with Enchance.

 

Zoom Zoom.

[dswanick]

Branching off from;

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...5&start=175

 

How do the Codex set values of I10 from Banshee Masks or the GK Quickening Power marry to the set value of I1 from Unwieldy?

 

Codex trumps BRB?

 

On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence

 

So a Unit of GKT all armed with Nemesis Daemonhammers attack at I10, if they are subject to the Quickening from a Librarian? Or on the turn they charge, a unit of Banshees modelled with Power Axes are S4, I10, AP2 killers of Terminators?

 

There's nothing I can find that states that the I1 set by Unwieldy trumps every other modifier.

 

So how do these work together?

There is no conflict -

Unwieldy - A model attacking with this weapon does so at Initiative step 1, unless it is a Monstrous Creature or a Walker.

The model's Initiative of 10 is irrelevant in this case.

[Gentlemanloser]

Quickening lets you attack at I10, Unwiledy doesn't.

 

That's a conflict isn't it?

 

Edit:

 

How is this any different to Signum/snap fire?

 

The Signum (Codex Rule) lets you shoot at BS5. But when you snap fire (BRB rule) you do so at BS1.

[Leonaides]

Quickening makes you I10, but unwieldy simply says I don't care what I you are, you attack at I1...

[dswanick]

Quickening lets you attack at I10, Unwiledy doesn't.

 

That's a conflict isn't it?

 

Edit:

 

How is this any different to Signum/snap fire?

 

The Signum (Codex Rule) lets you shoot at BS5. But when you snap fire (BRB rule) you do so at BS1.

As Leonaides said :

Quickening sets the model's I to 10. Unwieldy says attacks with the weapon happen at I1 (regardless of your I). So you have an I10 model with the weapon attacks coming at I1, so conflict.

Signum sets the model's BS to 5. Snap Shot sets the model's BS to 1 (until someone shows a definition for "counts as" that shows it isn't setting a value). So you have a model with either BS1 or BS5, which is a conflict.

This is why, in the thread on Signum and Snap Shot, I mentioned that if GW wanted it to work the way Quickening/Unwieldy works they would have made Snap Shot hit on a 6, regardless of BS.

[Gentlemanloser]

Quickening sets the model's I to 10. Unwieldy says attacks with the weapon happen at I1 (regardless of your I). So you have an I10 model with the weapon attacks coming at I1, so conflict.

Signum sets the model's BS to 5. Snap Shot sets the model's BS to 1 (until someone shows a definition for "counts as" that shows it isn't setting a value). So you have a model with either BS1 or BS5, which is a conflict.

 

Sorry, I'm being dense. ;)

 

I still don't see the diference there? Both are conflicts? :/

[dswanick]

Quickening sets the model's I to 10. Unwieldy says attacks with the weapon happen at I1 (regardless of your I). So you have an I10 model with the weapon attacks coming at I1, so conflict.

Signum sets the model's BS to 5. Snap Shot sets the model's BS to 1 (until someone shows a definition for "counts as" that shows it isn't setting a value). So you have a model with either BS1 or BS5, which is a conflict.

 

Sorry, I'm being dense. ;)

 

I still don't see the diference there? Both are conflicts? :/

Signum sets a models BS (to 5).

Snap Shot sets a models BS (to 1).

You see the conflict there?

 

OK.

Quickening sets a model's I (to 10). Basic rules mechanic is a model's attacks are resolved in the Fight sub-phase Initiative step corresponding to their I value.

Unwieldy changes the mechanic by which you determine when a model's attacks are resolved. Instead of the normal mechanic of looking to a model's I value, it directs you to resolve them at the I1 step.

No conflict. Quickening will set your models I to 10, and Unwieldy will alter the mechanic by which you determine when you resolve the attacks.

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah, I see.

 

How about the Banshee Mask? That's slightly different in wording to Quickening, isn't it?

[dswanick]

Ah, I see.

 

How about the Banshee Mask? That's slightly different in wording to Quickening, isn't it?

Not really :

Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a Banshee mask has Initiative 10 and negates any Initiative bonus conferred by cover and grenades.

[thade]

We had this conversation last edition. The solution then was "No, you can't swing your S10 hammer at I10." Why are we re-examining it? We're not fond of cheeky rules circumvention around here now, are we? :)

[dswanick]

We had this conversation last edition. The solution then was "No, you can't swing your S10 hammer at I10." Why are we re-examining it? We're not fond of cheeky rules circumvention around here now, are we? :)

I think we're having this conversation again because the rules have changed. Thus the underlying mechanics have changed, so we need to reevaluate how the rules fit together.

[thade]

We had this conversation last edition. The solution then was "No, you can't swing your S10 hammer at I10." Why are we re-examining it? We're not fond of cheeky rules circumvention around here now, are we? :)

I think we're having this conversation again because the rules have changed. Thus the underlying mechanics have changed, so we need to reevaluate how the rules fit together.

I actually disagree in cases like this; had something so blatantly powerful, it would've gotten a direct mention. People pick things like this out because they want it to be broken. ;) In fact, some people involved in this very conversation here were involved in asking it last edition too. But I digress.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there's academic merit to it. I don't suspect the impetus is academic merit, however. :(

[dswanick]

I'm not disagreeing that there's academic merit to it. I don't suspect the impetus is academic merit, however. :)

Aww, thade - you used to be the one who was always so positive about other peoples motives. :D

[thade]

I'm not disagreeing that there's academic merit to it. I don't suspect the impetus is academic merit, however. :)

Aww, thade - you used to be the one who was always so positive about other peoples motives. :D

haha That's true of everywhere except this board, my friend. <3 I'll see if I can't fix that.

[Aidoneus]

had something so blatantly powerful, it would've gotten a direct mention.

Hah! :D Funny. I liked the part where you assumed GW carefully considered the implications of all of their new rules, and consciously chose the wording on the new rules accordingly. :)

 

People pick things like this out because they want it to be broken. :) In fact, some people involved in this very conversation here were involved in asking it last edition too. But I digress.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there's academic merit to it. I don't suspect the impetus is academic merit, however. :(

Honestly Thade, that's quite an assumption on your part. And not one that reflects well on my, or other posters', character. Have you considered that maybe we're just trying to figure out how the rules work? Just because we come to different conclusions doesn't mean we're all horrible power gamers. In point of fact, I would let my opponent use any of these rulings. I'm even engaged in a discussion where I'm arguing that a strict interpretation of Bladestorm makes it very powerful, and I have never in my life played Eldar.

[thade]

Have you considered that maybe we're just trying to figure out how the rules work?

Yes.

[Gentlemanloser]

had something so blatantly powerful

 

DCCW spring to mind. :tu:

 

Also, I don't think I ever tried to argue this in 5th?

[StrayCatt]

Quickening sets the model's I to 10. Unwieldy says attacks with the weapon happen at I1 (regardless of your I). So you have an I10 model with the weapon attacks coming at I1, so conflict.

Signum sets the model's BS to 5. Snap Shot sets the model's BS to 1 (until someone shows a definition for "counts as" that shows it isn't setting a value). So you have a model with either BS1 or BS5, which is a conflict.

 

Sorry, I'm being dense. :D

 

I still don't see the diference there? Both are conflicts? :/

Signum sets a models BS (to 5).

Snap Shot sets a models BS (to 1).

You see the conflict there?

 

OK.

Quickening sets a model's I (to 10). Basic rules mechanic is a model's attacks are resolved in the Fight sub-phase Initiative step corresponding to their I value.

Unwieldy changes the mechanic by which you determine when a model's attacks are resolved. Instead of the normal mechanic of looking to a model's I value, it directs you to resolve them at the I1 step.

No conflict. Quickening will set your models I to 10, and Unwieldy will alter the mechanic by which you determine when you resolve the attacks.

 

 

Your logic is confusing sir. You apply the rules one way for unwieldy, which directs you to resolve it in a specific way, even though an argument could be made that Codex trumps. Yet for Hard to Hit, you argue the exact opposite way, even though it is effectively the same situation. A rule that directs you to resolve a specific action in a specific way.

[Brother Casman]

The rules for Unwieldy say that a model's attacks are resolved at Initiative step 1. It does not change the model's Initiative characteristic. These are two different things, as demonstrated by the Start of Initiative Pile In: "At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step, that isn't already in base contact with an enemy model, must make a Pile In move." (pg. 23, emphasis mine). There is also an example on page 23 that mentions a Space Marine Sergeant with a Power Fist.

 

I don't see the conflict with this.

[Grey Mage]

Nothing wrong with Banshees with Power Axes- theres models with them, and its a power weapon by the gods- but theyll strike last, like every other power axe.

[Brother Nicolas]

The rules for Unwieldy say that a model's attacks are resolved at Initiative step 1. It does not change the model's Initiative characteristic. These are two different things, as demonstrated by the Start of Initiative Pile In: "At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step, that isn't already in base contact with an enemy model, must make a Pile In move." (pg. 23, emphasis mine). There is also an example on page 23 that mentions a Space Marine Sergeant with a Power Fist.

 

I don't see the conflict with this.

 

 

Ok this whole I deal has been kinda throwing me off, and as such I finally started looking at the book with what people are saying.

 

If I am understanding right what Brother Casman is stating is that for pile in moves the Srg I4 is used but he dosent attack till I 1 do to the power fist and the unwieldy rule. The issue I see with what he is quoting is ... same page 23 is a missed sentance... "Not that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's Initiative."

 

Then it goes on for the example of the space marine. If were saying that the unwieldy is not modefying the models I value but change changing when he can attack, then would this not be worded differently?

[dswanick]

The issue I see with what he is quoting is ... same page 23 is a missed sentance... "Not that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's Initiative."

 

If were saying that the unwieldy is not modefying the models I value but change changing when he can attack, then would this not be worded differently?

Not really.

- Unwieldy is an example of a rule which changes the basic mechanic - that instead of striking at the Initiative step equal to their I value, they instead attack at Initiative step 1.

- Mark of Slaanesh is an example of a rules which changes a models I.

- Halberds are worded such that they change when a model "strikes" its "blows", but not when it Piles In.

- Banshee Masks set a models Initiative to 10. The only reason Unwieldy wins (Codex > Rulebook) is because despite the I10, Unwieldy is still changing the rules for how to determine when a model resolves its attacks (do so at I step 1, instead of at the I step equal to the models I of 10). The Banshees are still I10 during the first round of an assault, so if they managed to break their opponent they would Pursue at I10+d6 even though armed with weapons that resolve strikes at I1.

Hope this helps clarify.

[Hellios]

If Banshees get power axes and strike first with the next Eldar codex they would be worth taking... alas right now... they are meh... Looks at 60 howling banshees sitting on my shelf.