Lamprey's Bite on the Charge

[Iron Sage]

Eh, I think you all make fair points to be honest. IMO, GW needs to FAQ this. Its been a very interesting debate to follow by the way ;)

[Nehekhare]

Thank you, furyou miko :D

 

What I meant, though, was citation from 40k rules, not from grammar rules. common sense sadly doesn't really apply to GW publications ;)

 

also, where does the dictionary say that "conditional" cannot be "normal"?

 

@iron sage: indeed :)

[Iron Sage]

Thank you, furyou miko

What I meant, though, was citation from 40k rules, not from grammar rules. common sense sadly doesn't really apply to GW publications

also, where does the dictionary say that "conditional" cannot be "normal"?

@iron sage: indeed

Lol,yes, I found myself wanting to press like on yours, Mikos, Marshall and Gentlemanslosers posts all at once despite what your saying being rather different :D

But yes, interesting debate. Not sure who`s opinion I am leaning towards to be perfectly honest. You all make a good case.

Lets just hope that with the comming FAQ (hopefully out before too long), this and other questions which have arissen with the Chaos Daemons dex, will be answered in a satisfying detail :)

[*Furyou Miko]

Normal implies the standard.

 

A conditional argument is one that deviates from the standard because of another object interacting with it, thus setting the "condition".

 

Put another way, think of it like a flow chart;

 

NORMAL - CONDITIONAL NOT TRIGGERED -> NORMAL

NORMAL - CONDITIONAL TRIGGERED -> NOT NORMAL

[Gentlemanloser]

So the conditional trigger of rolling enough charge distance to initiate an Assault means all Assaults are not normal?

[*Furyou Miko]

No, because that's not a conditional trigger - you've already initiated the assault, hence triggering overwatch. The 'normal' condition for that situation is that you get into assault.

 

The conditional trigger is that you fail to reach combat because of rolling low which puts you on the abnormal situation track.

[Gentlemanloser]

How can you assert the 'normal' outcome for triggering an charge is actually reaching assault?

 

When random charge lengths, loss of attacking minis by overwatch, anything else I've missed all impact the outcome.

 

Sure, the desired outcome is that you get into Assault.  But it's not the guaranteed result.

 

What makes it the 'normal' result for initiating a charge?

[Iron Sage]

You do make a very good case, Miko.

 

I suspect you will be proven right in the comming FAQ. At least, I hope so:p

[*Furyou Miko]

It's the normal outcome because if you were trying to tell a computer to do it, making NOT successfully assaulting the normal outcome would require half a dozen branching paths instead of just one.

[Gentlemanloser]

It would be the same number of paths.  But this digresses.

 

What's the 'normal' outcome for shooting?  Removing a mini as a casualty?  Scoring a hit?  Scoring a Wound?

 

If you BS is 3, you have a 50% chance of hitting, and a 50% chance of missing.  Which is the 'normal' there?

 

Is 'launching an assault' 'normal' anyway?  Seeing as that's conditional on events taken in preceeding Movement and Shooting Phases.

[Nehekhare]

Normal implies the standard.

again: where is the basis for that in the 40k rules? where is "standart", "condition", etc. defined in the brb? why does computer programming vocabulary apply to 40k rules?

 

I'm afraid you're basing your argument on analogy and personal opinion alone.

[Fibonacci]

http://jenniweir.theworldrace.org/blogphotos/theworldrace/jenniweir//Im_not_listening.JPG

 

This is getting repetitious.

[*Furyou Miko]

Nehekare. Seriously?

 

I do NOT need to requote the damn dictionary every time I post.

[EricBasser]

Maybe they'll make Lamprey's Bite just replace Hammer of Wrath attacks. . . That would be sweet. . .

[Seahawk]

The problem there is that they'd only ever get it on the charge, which sucks.

[EricBasser]

Yes, but puts them at more of a Anti-Av unit. Int10 armorbane attacks followed by their regular attacks seems better than just one attack. Won't happen, but just a thought. Would make a Herald rolling the Loci that changes str a little more useful. . .

[Nehekhare]

Furyou, no you don't have to - actually, you didn't need to in the first place.

 

I'm just trying to say that as long as we're not arguing based on 40k rules, we're not talking about the same thing (and thus won't find a valid answer to the HoW question).

[*Furyou Miko]

GW's rules are founded in the English language. This means that you have to accept the conventions of the English language when discussing them. You can't just say "well, GW didn't publish that dictionary so that word doesn't mean that in the 40k rulebook".

 

Or, if you do insist on saying that, おめでとうでございます. So there.

[Gentlemanloser]

But you've still yet to show what 'normal' means for 40k.

 

Edit: Which is practically impossible, as it's not definined in any sort of relevance for the 40k ruleset.

[Nehekhare]

ockhams razor: among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected (because it reduces the numer of assumptions you have to defend).

 

conditional or special or bonus or red or blue or green NOT being "normal" is an assumption.

 

"all of its normal close combat attacks" being "all of" the number of attacks the model gets in "close combat" is not.

 

the first hypothesis needs proof for whatever kind of not normal is chosen AND disproof for all others.

 

for that last hypothesis we have clear rules on p.24 and don't have to invent criteria for which USRs provide normal attacks and which boni don't.

[The thousand son]

I love how you argue still at 70 posts, when I answered the quesion at post 2.

You will not be able to prove anyone right or wrong. It boils down into what GW refers to as "normal attacks". Is it attacks on the profile - or the attacks the model would normally get to make (if not biting lamphrey-style).

 

No matter what I personally believe, it is not clear cut. I do however suggest, as a general rule of thumb, when in doubt (no matter in what case) - ALWAYS go with the least favourable option (for you). It´s called sportsmanship. Atleast then you didnt bend :cuss your way like a sulky 12yo.

[*Furyou Miko]

Personally, I think that it all boils down to this: Normal attacks are attacks that are not granted by a Special Rule.

 

Because if they're granted by a Special Rule, they are special attacks.

[Gentlemanloser]

Except (I'm at work, could someone else quote the Assault rules) the rules on number of attacks clearly states additional attacks granted by wargear/special rules.  And the HoW special rule itself states this is an 'additional' attack.

[Nehekhare]

I love how you argue still at 70 posts, when I answered the quesion at post 2.

Oh I don't argue. I am just encouraging the others to present logically sound explanations for their arguments ;)

(which btw 12yolds seldomly are able to do)

 

@furyou: that's taking the word "special" out of the phrase "universal special rule" and assuming that it excludes "normal" in the lamprey's bite entry. why? because when taken out of context and understood in the most general way possible, special snowflakes aren't normal? In fact they are ;)

 

@Gentlemanloser: exactly.

[Lysere]

Why is everyone arguing about HoW and Lamprey's Bite? HoW is only ever at the models base strength. Unless the model has the rule armor bane at absolutely all times there is no argument about whether or not it gets it with HoW. Now about it getting a bonus attack or not when charging that is a different story, and I don't feel like trying to argue that one at all.