By Any Means Necessary and FriendlyFlyer

[hallodx]

Since I never played GK before this idea is new to me.

We all know By Any Means Necessary can let you put your template on friendly model, but can I put it on my flyer which is, you know, flying? Template weapon can never hurt a flying flyer, and if I can do so, I can prevent any damage that will happen to my army, only pure output.

 

Cheers!

 

EDIT: Also, I believe if units are lock in combat, they can't benefit cover saves from this rule or scattered template weapon, right?

[Magpie]

Technically this might be possible, however as flyers did not exist when the Karamazove rule was written I'd would not be inclined to allow it.

 

Units locked in combat do still get cover saves from any fire that might affect them. The "no cover save" thing only applies to wounds from close combat attacks.

[Gentlemanloser]

C:GK Karamazov might not have been.  But C:I Karamazov was.

 

And his rule is the same;

 

 

By Any Means Necessary: When Inquisitor Karamazov’s orbital strike relay is ‘fired’, you can choose to place the template so its centre is over a friendly model, rather than an enemy – even if that friendly model is in combat. If you do so, the shot does not scatter. All models under the template are hit as normal.

 

By RAW, stick it over your Stormraven/Stormtalon/Valk.

[hallodx]

Technically this might be possible, however as flyers did not exist when the Karamazove rule was written I'd would not be inclined to allow it.

 

Units locked in combat do still get cover saves from any fire that might affect them. The "no cover save" thing only applies to wounds from close combat attacks.

GW already had a chance while they write (or double check after doing copy/paste), so I will personally insist it's possible.

They can always change it later if someone ask them. Will you?

 

 

C:GK Karamazov might not have been.  But C:I Karamazov was.

 

And his rule is the same;

 

 

By Any Means Necessary: When Inquisitor Karamazov’s orbital strike relay is ‘fired’, you can choose to place the template so its centre is over a friendly model, rather than an enemy – even if that friendly model is in combat. If you do so, the shot does not scatter. All models under the template are hit as normal.

 

By RAW, stick it over your Stormraven/Stormtalon/Valk.

Don't forget they are battle brother with others now, so it can also be any imperial guard, space marines...blahblahblah, but no Taudar. 

I'm kindda believing Crimson Fist actually bombed by inquisition now...

[Magpie]

And we wonder why some people call other people douches.

 

The rule is clearly that you can target a friendly in the same manner as an enemy. If you wish to take it somewhere beyond that I wish you well in your future gaming solitude.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

And we wonder why some people call other people douches.


The rule is clearly that you can target a friendly in the same manner as
an enemy. If you wish to take it somewhere beyond that I wish you well
in your future gaming solitude.

 

Don't get personal in a rules debate.  It has no place.

 

RAW, you can drop Karamazov's OS onto a friendly flier and it won't scatter.  That's all there is to this.

 

 

Don't forget they are battle brother with others now, so it can also
be any imperial guard, space marines...blahblahblah, but no Taudar. 

I'm kindda believing Crimson Fist actually bombed by inquisition now...

 

That's why I mentioned the Stormtalon. ;)  Cheaper than a Raven, and just as able as having an OS dropped on it.

 

Now, why you'd want to drop a non scattering OS onto a large flier is another question.  It's of more use being dropped on a small mini, either locked in CC, or between some enemy Tanks.

 

Rather than the middle of a larger mini.

[Magpie]

Which ever way you want to spin it doesn't remove the fact that it isn't a move in the spirt of game nor does it have any point what so ever as a large blast isn't big enough to cover a flyer's base and hit the enemy models 1" away from it.

[Gentlemanloser]

For rules discussions, I utterly disregard the 'spirit of the game' and 'the golden rule'.

 

They have zero bearing.

 

As does how *I* would play it, or whether I'd get another game, or not.

 

It's also useless to caveat every single post with "of course, you can play 40k however you want, or rather however you and your opponent agree to play the game, as no one can force you otherwise..."

[Magpie]

Spirt of the game and most important rule are two vitally important fundamentals that cannot be ignored.

 

It's not insignificant that many inconsistencies are solved when viewed with reference to these basic principles.

[Gentlemanloser]

You're wrong.

 

Shall we dice off?  I'm correct on a 4+...

[hallodx]

Which ever way you want to spin it doesn't remove the fact that it isn't a move in the spirt of game nor does it have any point what so ever as a large blast isn't big enough to cover a flyer's base and hit the enemy models 1" away from it.

You don't have to put the template at center of a model's base. Just the hole above that model is legal, so even a 3' template can hit a model ~2' away.

[Lysere]

Spirt of the game and most important rule are two vitally important fundamentals that cannot be ignored.

 

It's not insignificant that many inconsistencies are solved when viewed with reference to these basic principles.

 

When discussing rules, in particular rules that can be decided to be RAW or not just be reading the relevant books personal ideas what should and should not be done are useless. Only the actual rules matter. Afterall if you tell someone to play it their way, it doesn't do anything to help someone who has this same question who plays in an entirely different setting. The golden rule does not actually have any control over a game of 40k, it only applies to the people playing it. As such online rules discussion doesn't need it.

 

My question as to the rule is does it target the flyer as a shooting attack, and does it need to be able to 'hit' the model you are placing it on. After all weapons like blast weapons can't actually hit a flyer, ever. So if it requires the ability to hit a friendly model then no, if the rule just requires it to be placed on the base of a model that is friendly then I would say it most certainely works. I don't have the exact wording for the rule so I can't really say one way or another.

[Gentlemanloser]

I quoted it above;

 

 

By Any Means Necessary: When Inquisitor Karamazov’s orbital strike relay
is ‘fired’, you can choose to place the template so its centre is over a
friendly model, rather than an enemy – even if that friendly model is
in combat. If you do so, the shot does not scatter. All models under the
template are hit as normal.

 

Doesn't need to 'hit' the target.

 

You can place it, and it doesn't scatter.

 

(After it hasn't scattered, you then resolve 'hits' as normal.  In the case of a flier, it can't be hit, as normal.)

[Seahawk]

You'd want to use something with a bigger wingspan though. Considering it doesn't scatter, you want to maximize hits, which means if the hole is still over your base, your flyer is too small. Valkyrie probably is the best tool for the job.

 

Yes, this is entirely legal.

 

Personal quibbles do not belong here.

 

Such as with some of my other topics, yes this is cinematic and thus fluffy and in the "spirit of the game". Perhaps the flyer is carrying a targeting beacon, or signal flare, or whatever, and zips away the moment the shot is fired, due to precise timing by highly skilled gunners. The models only show a freeze frame of the battlefield, not what they're actually doing in a given moment.

[Magpie]

 

When discussing rules, in particular rules that can be decided to be RAW or not just be reading the relevant books personal ideas what should and should not be done are useless. Only the actual rules matter.

 

 

 

So what your saying is that when discussing the rules as written we must choose to ignore the rules as written. 

RAW means ALL of the rules as written and the context that each rule creates for each other rule.

A rule must be read in its entirety and not in isolation.

 

 

 

The golden rule does not actually have any control over a game of 40k, it only applies to the people playing it. As such online rules discussion doesn't need it.

 

 

 

errr... All the rules apply to the people playing it, or are you suggesting that we ignore things like "player turn" and "you may move your models" or "when you both have to do something at the same time the phasing player chooses the order" and so on for 150 odd pages should be ignored?

[Lysere]

 

 

When discussing rules, in particular rules that can be decided to be RAW or not just be reading the relevant books personal ideas what should and should not be done are useless. Only the actual rules matter.

 

 

 

So what your saying is that when discussing the rules as written we must choose to ignore the rules as written. 

RAW means ALL of the rules as written and the context that each rule creates for each other rule.

A rule must be read in its entirety and not in isolation.

 

 

>> 

The golden rule does not actually have any control over a game of 40k, it only applies to the people playing it. As such online rules discussion doesn't need it.

 

 

 

errr... All the rules apply to the people playing it, or are you suggesting that we ignore things like "player turn" and "you may move your models" or "when you both have to do something at the same time the phasing player chooses the order" and so on for 150 odd pages should be ignored?

 

 

In a discussion of Rules As Written the only thing that matters are the Rules As Written. Opinion, sportsmanship, consideration you'd show an opponent, these things serve no purpose. If a rule says it does something, than by RAW it does regardless of what you and I think it should do.

 

A very good example are Grav weapons. According the the Rules As they are Written you can not take saves against them when the target is a vehicle. This is not how I would play it unless my opponent wants to play it that way, but that is how the RAW works.

[Magpie]

 

A very good example are Grav weapons. According the the Rules As they are Written you can not take saves against them when the target is a vehicle. This is not how I would play it unless my opponent wants to play it that way, but that is how the RAW works.

 

 

 

 

 

So the actual RAW is as per the Page 4 rule, you'd come to an agreement.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

So what your saying is that when discussing the rules as written we must choose to ignore the rules as written. 

RAW means ALL of the rules as written and the context that each rule creates for each other rule.

A rule must be read in its entirety and not in isolation.

 

You're wrong.

 

I've diced off and rolled a 6.

 

Thanks.

[Lysere]

 

 

A very good example are Grav weapons. According the the Rules As they are Written you can not take saves against them when the target is a vehicle. This is not how I would play it unless my opponent wants to play it that way, but that is how the RAW works.

 

 

 

 

 

So the actual RAW is as per the Page 4 rule, you'd come to an agreement.

 

That is neither a basic rule, nor an advanced rule. It's just something everyone should do their best to follow. When a rule is either right or wrong though and the rules support it in full (Which they do) there is no reason why I should have to agree to play them that way. After all the rule is written to work without any grey areas.

 

Also Gentleman's point.

[Magpie]

 

 

So what your saying is that when discussing the rules as written we must choose to ignore the rules as written. 

RAW means ALL of the rules as written and the context that each rule creates for each other rule.

A rule must be read in its entirety and not in isolation.

 

You're wrong.

 

I've diced off and rolled a 6.

 

Thanks.

 

No thank YOU.

 

I could never give such a perfect illustration that Internet RAW relies totally on applying rules only when they are convenient and ignoring them when they are not.

[Magpie]

That is neither a basic rule, nor an advanced rule.

 

That's right it is  a general principle

 

Are you suggesting that we should only "do our best" when it comes to measuring distances, rolling dice, scatter, taking characteristics texts and all the other fundamental stuff that is detailed on pages 1 - 10 ?

 

An even better example of holding certain rules sacrosanct as it suits.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

No thank YOU.

 

I could never give such a perfect illustration that Internet RAW

relies totally on applying rules only when they are convenient and

ignoring them when they are not.

 

I think you have missed the point of my example.

 

Actually, scratch that, I know you're wrong.

 

I just rolled a 5.

[Magpie]

 

 

No thank YOU.

 

I could never give such a perfect illustration that Internet RAW

relies totally on applying rules only when they are convenient and

ignoring them when they are not.

 

I think you have missed the point of my example.

 

Actually, scratch that, I know you're wrong.

 

I just rolled a 5.

 

I was but I've chosen to ignore that rule now.

So should we roll off to see if we apply that rule or not?

oh.....

if we roll of that means we accept that rule, but we're not.... umm oh dear .....

[Gentlemanloser]

Oh please, let us ignore the 'Golden Rule'.

 

In which case, it's RAW to allow Karamazov to drop his OS on a Friendly Flier.

 

/thread

[Magpie]

Oh please, let us ignore the 'Golden Rule'.

 

In which case, it's RAW to allow Karamazov to drop his OS on a Friendly Flier.

 

/thread

 

OR we could ignore equally ignore the Karamazov rule and not have a problem at all.