Brother dean Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Stasis grenade plus Blind according to page 8 of teh BGB is still WS1 so no, the OP shouldnt have made all those hits.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Stasis grenade plus Blind according to page 8 of teh BGB is still WS1 so no, the OP shouldnt have made all those hits.... On second read through, this is correct. Here is the order of operations: 1) Apply mulitpliers (x2, x3 etc) 2) Apply addition or subtraction (+1, -2, etc) 3) Apply set value Therefore it would go WS -1, WS = 1. Their WS will never reach 0. Ironically, in any situation where the WS does indeed reach 0, firing a stasis grenade at that unit will increase the WS to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Lucifer Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The way I read it blind sets their WS to 1, this is no modifier, this downright set their initiative to a number. Stasis applies a modifier of -1 thus making them WS0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 I can see the argument on both sides. The reason I made the thread is because I wanted a discussion like this. Like Lucifer has said the blind rule set the WS to 1 not a modifier, and the time it was set was from the previous turn, so in the following turn it was already at that stat before the stasis grenade was even fired, if it all happened in the same turn/phase I could see it being a bit more muddied as that is what the BRB is referring to, the order of operations when multiple effects are happening at the same time, not if one is going on top of another that happened in a previous turn/phase. A stasis grenade is also a codex specific rule and blind is a USR, so it should have precidence, not sure if that actually would matter here in order of operations but worth noting. I also agree that on non-walker vehicles its really muddy on how you can rule that, it honestly seems like something that needs an FAQ on the DA errata. Or even emailing GW directly to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 There is no argument. The rule book explicitly states in which order you apply bonuses and penalties. You subtract 1 THEN you set the value to 1. No room for argument. That's exactly from the rule book. It's like the order of operations in math. Sure, you can say that you read 5+ 1 * 4 as 5 + 1 then 6 * 4, but good luck convincing your professor. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Lucifer Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I re-read it and you are right. It doesn't mention turns, only mentions that if a model is under several modifiers to it's characteristics you have to apply then in a certain order, which means WS in this case will always be 1. If something is too good to be true in DA Codex, it 's never true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I re-read it and you are right. It doesn't mention turns, only mentions that if a model is under several modifiers to it's characteristics you have to apply then in a certain order, which means WS in this case will always be 1. If something is too good to be true in DA Codex, it 's never true. Yeah, but there are still plenty of super annoying things we can do with blind, stasis, and rad grenades. A lot of situational, but it's always the right situation when black knights are 9" away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 Fair enough, as others have said if something looks too good to be true it probably is. We were aware of the order of operations and our reasoning at the time was this: blind is a USR that reduces the WS and BS to 1 until the end of the next turn, at the time the test is failed is when the modifier is applied, afterwards and during the next turn its already been set and an ongoing effect (similar to something like soul blaze), its not something that is freshly applied whenever something uses it or a test is made, like invisibility or snapfire, snapfire is a set value modifier that is applied at the end whenver a unit is making a shot, blind is an ongoing effect that lasts after the modifier has been applied, in this case during the following turn. For this reason, we ruled when the stasis grenade effect applied in the following turn there was no order of operations to follow as it was not multiple modifiers, but a modifer on an already set ongoing effect. This could be wrong but we couldn't tell and it seemd valid at the time, feel free to correct here if not, and after reading up probably is, but thats why I made the post It was a weird scenario that this would have occured and we ruled it at the time as described. I would still like an FAQ on this and on if stasis grenades can effect nonwalker vehicles, but theres lots of stuff we all want clarified with the rules in this game and can't get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaelion Hexis Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 It was a cunning and brutal plan though, so I applaud the attempt. Despite being a necron player :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Fair enough, as others have said if something looks too good to be true it probably is. We were aware of the order of operations and our reasoning at the time was this: blind is a USR that reduces the WS and BS to 1 until the end of the next turn, at the time the test is failed is when the modifier is applied, afterwards and during the next turn its already been set and an ongoing effect (similar to something like soul blaze), its not something that is freshly applied whenever something uses it or a test is made, like invisibility or snapfire, snapfire is a set value modifier that is applied at the end whenver a unit is making a shot, blind is an ongoing effect that lasts after the modifier has been applied, in this case during the following turn. For this reason, we ruled when the stasis grenade effect applied in the following turn there was no order of operations to follow as it was not multiple modifiers, but a modifer on an already set ongoing effect. This could be wrong but we couldn't tell and it seemd valid at the time, feel free to correct here if not, and after reading up probably is, but thats why I made the post It was a weird scenario that this would have occured and we ruled it at the time as described. I would still like an FAQ on this and on if stasis grenades can effect nonwalker vehicles, but theres lots of stuff we all want clarified with the rules in this game and can't get Nothing says that it can't. Its just that there is no WS or initiative value to modify so the effects are ignored. It's treated as WS 1 only when specifically being attacked. For all other purposes, it simply doesn't have the value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 Well thats the issue isn't it? The stasis grenade effect lasts the whole turn, not just when it gets hit. So if it's treated as WS 1 in close combat and had previously been hit by a stasis grenade you would then apply the effect when it has such a value, giving it WS 0. If something is being treated as having a certain value for a characteristic, than modifiers such as this or snapfire or others would should still be able to affect it, i believe there are legacies of glory or wargear of some sort that allow you to have buffed WS on vehicles as well, can't recall the exact one off the top of my head, but I believe it gives WS 4 in combat. Some unmanned gun emplacements also are treated as having a set BS when they shoot right? but don't normally have that in their characteristic, yet they would still be affected by snapfiring at flyers for example right? Im not saying this is necessarily cut and dry or correct, but that would be the argument for it. Its kinda tough to judge IMO from a RAW perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Well thats the issue isn't it? The stasis grenade effect lasts the whole turn, not just when it gets hit. So if it's treated as WS 1 in close combat and had previously been hit by a stasis grenade you would then apply the effect when it has such a value, giving it WS 0. If something is being treated as having a certain value for a characteristic, than modifiers such as this or snapfire or others would should still be able to affect it, i believe there are legacies of glory or wargear of some sort that allow you to have buffed WS on vehicles as well, can't recall the exact one off the top of my head, but I believe it gives WS 4 in combat. Some unmanned gun emplacements also are treated as having a set BS when they shoot right? but don't normally have that in their characteristic, yet they would still be affected by snapfiring at flyers for example right? Im not saying this is necessarily cut and dry or correct, but that would be the argument for it. Its kinda tough to judge IMO from a RAW perspective. For that purpose it IS weapon skill 1. Just like blind IS weapon skill 1. It's setting the value so it overrides the negative or positive modifiers you could give it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 so by that logic is a gun emplacement that is given BS 2 when shooting unmanned not subjected to a snapfire modifier if shooting at a flyer? The BS is not in the units profile, but i definatly don't think its played that way. That's the argument and question, If something is given a base characteristic for a phase or action does that mean it can't be modified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twopounder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 so by that logic is a gun emplacement that is given BS 2 when shooting unmanned not subjected to a snapfire modifier if shooting at a flyer? The BS is not in the units profile, but i definatly don't think its played that way. That's the argument and question, If something is given a base characteristic for a phase or action does that mean it can't be modified? That's not how snap firing at aircraft works. Emplacement is BS2 Emplacement becomes BS of firing unit Emplacement becomes BS 1 for snap fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prot Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Even with this rules realization, all is not lost. I think the gem that came from this thread is that an often overlooked special rule has a very meaningful impact on Necrons: Blind. This goes beyond Dark Angels and to anyone wanting to bring something to the table that's a bit different, won't hamper your playstyle against most opponents, and possibly have an impact against non-fearless, non-Know No Fear armies. Warp Talons might actually get a shot at this... the Helguard Formation (Chaos again) is something else that uses this. I think the fact it happens to be a cool reason to take a Dark Talon is icing on the cake, and Black Knights are a staple in most DA armies anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 That's not how snap firing at aircraft works. Emplacement is BS2 Emplacement becomes BS of firing unit Emplacement becomes BS 1 for snap fire. I don't wan't to get into too big of a heated argument and Im not trying to cause strife or anything, I'm just trying to get a point across on a rules issue, so please don't take anything im saying personally or as an attack on you This also will take a bit to explain and this is strictly and argument from a RAW perspective, not RAI, so bare with me. So in this example the automated fire rule allows a gun emplacement or other fortifications to be treated as BS 2 (upgrades can even make is BS 3) when firing at something if there is no unit inside, this is not a charateristic that it has on its profile, just something that it gets as a special rule when it makes a shooting attack unmanned, and its not a USR. In your response you say its BS becomes that of the unit firing it, the point I was making was what would happen when theres no unit firing it and its using its automated fire to shoot at flyers or something you have to snapfire at. In this situation its pretty much agreed that it becomes BS 1 when doing so and is affected by the snapfire modifier. Theres also units/wargear/formations that cause a -1 BS modifier when shot, and I think its generally considered that would still apply as well in this situation. If this is the case than its an example of when a unit that is treated as having a certain characteristic for turn phase(shooting in this case) but not actually on its profile, is effected by ability modifiers. If this reasoning stands than a vehicle that is treated as having WS 1 in the assault phase would be able to be affected by ability modifiers as well, in this case the stasis grenade. If you are claiming that the WS 1 vehicle would not be affected as its already a set stat and thus following the order of operations would be set last, then you would also be saying that any gun emplacement that uses automated fire with no firing unit inside as desribed above and against flyers or any snapshooting unit (like invis) would be set at the BS it gives it of 2 (or 3 with upgrade). As the set modifier is applied last AND the automated fire/sentry turret rule is a special codex rule and not USR, and those overrides the snapfiring USR (BRB states codex and unit special rules override and take precedence over basic and USR rules). I don't think anyone plays it this way, otherwise you would be seeing people getting free BS 2/3 snapshooting against flyers and invis units all the time, it would be better to leave it unmanned in these cases. Also one final smaller note is that the rule for WS 1 vehicles in combat or the BS 2 automated fire rule in this example lack the term "always" in the rule description that some other set modifier rules do. If they did have "always" included in the desription it would be pretty cut and dry that that is a set value, but they don't, just something else to consider on your initial assumption that these were set values and not just the base characteristic given. So that is the argument that is being made for stasis grenades working on non-walker vehicles. I hope I have made this point clear and please reply and let me know what you think or if I need to clarify what i am saying further And thanks for taking the time to read and respond in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnakeChisler Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I've read the stuff on page 8 on multiple modifiers but it refers to wargear so I don't see how it applies in the case of failed Blind Test then -1 from grenade? Please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Page 8 says "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic..." To me that covers the instance of being under the effects of Blind and Stasis Anomaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 Page 8 says "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic..." To me that covers the instance of being under the effects of Blind and Stasis Anomaly. Im inclinded to agree with the other posters and you Cactus on this that it probably would work that way. Although because it says "or" instead of "and" we get into a goofy interpretation of the english language situation on whether or not those two groups are mutually exclusive. If it just said "if a model has a combination of rules AND wargear that modify a characteristic...." it would be much more clear and would include both. With how it is now and how goofy english can be its possible to intrepret one of two ways. As said I'm personally now on the side that it couldn't work as much as I think or wish it should, but its not completely a completely closed and shut case IMO. Aftert talking to others in our gaming group and referencing my post above I am more convinced that stasis will work on vehicles in CC tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnakeChisler Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Stasis on vehicles I'm 100 % but not sure on the blind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loar Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 Yeah i won't play that way with blind for now unless it gets FAQ'd. But agree with it being a viable tactic for vehicles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.