Quantum Shielding VS. Lance

[Kristoff]

 

 

I'm not sure that is accurate, the rule clearly states that the model has to have the rules or wargear in question. Which as far as I can tell means the multiple modifiers rule does not come into play at all. However, codex rules still trump brb, so QS still wins as far as I can tell.

From Modifiers: "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..."

 

Nope, possession is not required. If it was, than Lance would be literally useless.

 

But, yeah, codex still trumps rulebook. A rule some have forgotten in reviewing this case, and not necessarily here.

 

I'm not arguing that the wargear can't modify the model's characteristic regardless of possession, my point was that the multiple modifiers conflict resolution rule technically only applies when they are possessed by the same character. (which means we look elsewhere for conflict resolution and arrive at codex>brb.)

 

It's still the same, really. "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic..."

 

The target model is still having Lance trying to affect its Armour Value. Possession may be 9/10s of the law, but still no more a requirement here than the base Modifiers rules.

[Teetengee]

 

 

 

I'm not sure that is accurate, the rule clearly states that the model has to have the rules or wargear in question. Which as far as I can tell means the multiple modifiers rule does not come into play at all. However, codex rules still trump brb, so QS still wins as far as I can tell.

From Modifiers: "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..."

 

Nope, possession is not required. If it was, than Lance would be literally useless.

 

But, yeah, codex still trumps rulebook. A rule some have forgotten in reviewing this case, and not necessarily here.

 

I'm not arguing that the wargear can't modify the model's characteristic regardless of possession, my point was that the multiple modifiers conflict resolution rule technically only applies when they are possessed by the same character. (which means we look elsewhere for conflict resolution and arrive at codex>brb.)

 

It's still the same, really. "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic..."

 

The target model is still having Lance trying to affect its Armour Value. Possession may be 9/10s of the law, but still no more a requirement here than the base Modifiers rules.

 

I read it as if a model has a combination of rules or wargear as the emphasis rather than rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, because the model doesn't necessarily have those rules/wargear, some other model might instead. In any case, it is mostly semantics, since I am pretty sure that even if that rule applied we would still need to go to the codex vs brb rule.

[Kristoff]

In any case, it is mostly semantics, since I am pretty sure that even if that rule applied we would still need to go to the codex vs brb rule.

The scary part is, rules parsing IS semantics. There is absolutely no way to get away from it.

[Teetengee]

 

In any case, it is mostly semantics, since I am pretty sure that even if that rule applied we would still need to go to the codex vs brb rule.

The scary part is, rules parsing IS semantics. There is absolutely no way to get away from it.

 

True.

[Ushtarador]

 

I'm sure it was not the intention of GW to make Quantum Shielding ignore Lance. Nobody around here plays it like that in any tournament or friendly game.

Yes RAW you might make a case for it, but many things are stupid RAW.

Well since this forum doesn't represent your local group, we kind of have to stick to RAW.

 

My interpretation also represents the european tournament scene on the highest level, and they are usually quite reasonable ^^

 

If anyone thinks GW worded quantum shielding like this explicitly to make it trump lance they are giving them way too much credit. The FAQ of the last codex is a very good indicator of how it should be interpreted.

[Kristoff]

My interpretation also represents the european tournament scene on the highest level, and they are usually quite reasonable ^^

Well aren't you awesome with no link.

 

If anyone thinks GW worded quantum shielding like this explicitly to make it trump lance they are giving them way too much credit. The FAQ of the last codex is a very good indicator of how it should be interpreted.

Who said anything about deliberate? Just saying how it is.

 

And the FAQ of the last codex is pointless since the mechanic of the Wargear has changed.

[Spinsanity]

Could anyone care to quote the actual wording on QS for those who don't have access to a copy of C:N? o.Ô

Or would it be against board rules even in that context?

[Kristoff]

Codex: Necrons (2015)- Quantum Shielding:

A vehicle equipped with active quantum shielding counts all of its Front and Side Armour Values as 13. A vehicle’s quantum shielding is active until it suffers a penetrating hit, at which point it immediately deactivates. For the remainder of the battle after a vehicle’s quantum shielding deactivates, all subsequent hits against that vehicle (including hits made from subsequent shooting attacks in the same phase – either from a different weapon or a different unit – or hits made at a lower Initiative step in close combat) are treated as though the vehicle was not equipped with quantum shielding.