Pask as warlord data analysis

[Seahawk]

Tank Commander/Pask is a character, and if you resolve them exactly the same, why no LO,S! roll?

[Captain Idaho]

Because LOS! Isn't a wound.

[Seahawk]

It's treated as one, though.

[Captain Idaho]

Only for wound allocation. Your position relies on wound allocation and Look Out Sir! Being the same thing but they aren't.

[Fibonacci]

I need a rule quote before I belive that.  We have supplied quote and page where it says hits to squadrons are resolved exactly like wounds.  So far all you have give is "no it's not" because you want to replace "resolved" in the rules with "allocation" as if that even mattered.  It doesn't.  Hits are resolved as wounds until you have a rule saying otherwise.

[Captain Idaho]

Actually no, you need to provide the evidence that Wound Allocation is the same as Look Out, Sir! since the burden on proof is on you being this is a permissive rule set.

[Fibonacci]

 

 

"Once you have determined the number of hits, these hits must be resolved, one at a time, against the model in the squadron closest to the firing unit -- exactly like you would resolve Wounds on a normal unit." pg 77

 

Wounds are passed on by LO,S in nromal units so hits would be passed on with LO,S in squadrons.  It's not an unrelated precedent; it's RAW.

And there you go.  Hits are resolved exactly like wounds.  Resolved means allocated, rolled for Look Out, Sir, saved and applied.  It covers it all.

 

Tag.  Your it.

[Captain Idaho]

"Once you have determined the number of hits, these hits must be resolved, one at a time, against the model in the squadron closest to the firing unit -- exactly like you would resolve Wounds on a normal unit." pg 77

 

But the sentence above is a contradiction if interpreted your way. If you perform the whole action EXACTLY like you do on a normal unit, you'll not apply them one at a time.

 

The last part of your quote is purely referencing what had come before it "against the model in the squadron closest to the firing unit." It follows a "dash" which shows it is in connection to the previous part of the sentence but not directly related to it.

 

It is a misunderstanding that it is an instruction informing you to perform the action like a different rule. It's giving you instruction on how to follow the rule, then finished up with a reminder how applying to the nearest model is done exactly like how you would under normal shooting.

 

That's the grammatically correct interpretation.

[Fibonacci]

Wounds are alloceted to a unit one at a time starting with the closest model.  Is this not correct?

 

Hits are applied to a squdron, one at a time, starting with the closest model.  Is this not correct?

 

How are they different?

[Captain Idaho]

Wounds are allocated to a unit one at a time starting with the closest model. That is explained here:

 

 

"Once you have determined the number of hits, these hits must be resolved, one at a time, against the model in the squadron closest to the firing unit -- exactly like you would resolve Wounds on a normal unit." pg 77

 

It's explained above ONLY and not elsewhere in the rules book how to resolve hits.

 

You're reading the last part of the paragraph "... - Exactly like you would resolve wounds on a normal unit" as if that completely removes the sentence preceding it.

 

If the last part of the sentence is interpreted how you have done, then that means we don't apply the hits one model at a time.

 

It's a contradiction, hence why your interpretation isn't valid because it destroys the meaning of the paragraph.

 

The meaning, and I'm entirely sure about this, is you apply the hits to the nearest model exactly how you would normally apply the hit/wound to the nearest model. That is all. It doesn't mean you resolve the entirety of the shooting procedure like you would a normal unit.

 

***Can someone give us an exact quote, word and word and grammatically sound including dashes etc?***

[Warhead01]

you guys should take this elsewhere. It's making me crazy. Theirs a whole rules sub forum. 

[Captain Idaho]

You're correct of course, it needs moving to the OR.

 

Though I'm fairly tired of it by now. :)

 

Back on subject, Pask with Punisher seems to be taking over the internet though Vanquisher also seems like it's winning.

[Fibonacci]

Wounds are allocated to a unit one at a time starting with the closest model. That is explained here:

 

 

 

It's explained above ONLY and not elsewhere in the rules book how to resolve hits.

Keep reading until you get to mixed saves and characters.  It does indeed change and is explained in several othre places.

[Captain Idaho]

Like was suggested perhaps we should take it to the OR?

 

But like I said you're applying all the rules where it's only telling to apply one.

[Fibonacci]

:lol:

 

OK.  Im done.  Good luck with that.

[march10k]

Ah...two rules lawyers enter...common sense leaves.  FORGET  "Read As Written," it's no longer valid.  There is no way in hell that GW intended for a tank to be able to sense an incoming sabot round (6000+ fps), then maneuver itself to intercept so that the other tank might live.  That's just plain stupid.  Comparing it to a unit of escort aircraft that a,  would have a good ten seconds to act before a missile caught up to Air Force One, b, are elite as hell, and c, are flying jets, not lumbering about in tanks that go 0-20 in about five minutes, and operate in two dimensions, not three, is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD!!!  Not a one of you actually believes that a tank is going to have the time and the agility to jump up and interpose itself between a meltagun and Pask's tank, you're just trying to justify CHEATING.  Yeah.  I said it.  CHEATING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...What?

[Minsc]

^This.

 

RAI there's no chance that Lo:S works on Tank- Commanders, and as stated by mach10k it makes no logical sense either.

[WarriorFish]

That's enough. Take the rules discussion to the correct forum please and let's stick to Pask. There is much to discuss with his new and improved appearance however Look Out, Sir! works or doesn't.

[johnyocum]

Since the Executioner now 'Gets Hot', I'm probably going to go to a Punisher for my one 'modular' Russ.  Still thinking of putting Pask in that one (or buying another tank since the hatch on that one is glued shut), or maybe into one of my Battle Cannon-equipped tanks (of which I have 2, also glued down hatches).

 

Either that or I'm going to buy me a Pask model and order me a Vanquisher turret from somewhere, since his 'Old Grudges' rule is far, far too much fun, especially to deal with Tau battle-suits (something I absolutely detest having to deal with).

[WarriorFish]

I plan on building a Pask on a magnetised turret. Along with the magnetised Demolisher model Russ I already have I'll have a full selection of tanks for him :) As mentioned he'll not really be using the template ones as his BS4 is better than that though I do like the sound of the large blast Executioner profile. Might be useful.

 

Punisher and Vanquisher are the clear winners though, such that if you ever take Pask in something else you'll probably have to justify yourself to everyone you meet..!

[Seahawk]

Agreed!

[cypherthefallenangel]

I was just thinking that if your taking pask as your warlord he would probably be better in the punisher due to his warlord trait. The vanquisher cannon already has twin linked for him so preferred enemy would be wasted on him but rerolling 1s for the punisher would be useful.

[Kierdale]

Wonder if Pask and a second Tank Commander as 2nd HQ would be overkill?

You'd certainly be losing out on the opportunity to have an infantry senior officer, advisors...

[FlamingDeth]

For blobs probably, but if you're running mech vets and filling your heavy support slots it could be fun.

[march10k]

How about pask and creed in the same list?  OOOH, nasty....three orders issued to veteran squads, plus the sweetness of pask?