Decapitation Strike, 'For Whom the Bell Tolls'

[Monkeychunks]

Hi all,

I'm having a bit of trouble with the Raven Guard Decapitation Strike, specifically the part dealing with Preferred Enemy. Quoted below are direct lines from the 7th Edition rulebook and Legiones Astartes.

 

 

Preferred Enemy

 

This rule is often presented as Preferred Enemy (X) where X identifies a specific type of foe. If the special rule does not specify a type of foe, then everyone is a Preferred Enemy of the unit. A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy. This applies both to shooting and close combat attacks.

 

 

For Whom the Bell Tolls

 

All Legiones Astartes (Raven Guard) units in a force using this Rite of War gains the Preferred Enemy (Independent Characters) special rule.

 

My question is whether I can benefit from Preferred Enemy when shooting at a mixed unit, where an Independent Character is being shielded by other infantry. For the sake of argument let's consider a 20-man Tactical blob with embedded Chaplain.

If I shoot at the unit, does this constitute 'attacking its Preferred Enemy' and hence provide rerolls, even if these shots are being resolved against Tacticals standing in the way?

Or does it only count when the Chaplain is on his own and not joined to any units at all?

 

Many thanks for the help, and hopefully a consistent answer from the community.

[PastelAvenger]

Personally I only think this works when attacking an Independent Character. So either in a challenge or shooting at them on there own.

 

A Tau character had the same thing and I think FW clarified that he only took effect when attacking a IC so I would use that ruling. Hey I maybe wrong here.

[Nusquam]

I emailed FW about that a while ago; they said it's only when you directly affect an IC. IE fighting in a challenge, precision shots/hits allocated to them etc

[rendingon1+]

I emailed FW about that a while ago; they said it's only when you directly affect an IC. IE fighting in a challenge, precision shots/hits allocated to them etc

So, outside challanges and "precision hitting" this rule is useless?

[Nusquam]

Unfortunately. I thought it was to take out command and their bodyguard. Like how furies deal with the body guard and the chooser goes for the leader.

[rendingon1+]

I just realized (not a great discovery) that PF is wasted even with precision strikes - with PS you can allocate a wound on "6" to hit only. PF allows you to reroll "1" which you cannot reroll cause you're not targeting "for whom..." target (assuming Independet is in a unit). Totally useless in shooting - only challenges benefit.

If I may offtop a little - are Dark Furies good? I'm yet to play a battle as a RG and on paper they look really nice (accompanied by character with attached Void Shield). Also is it worth to upgrade some/most/all of them to Raven's Talons?

[Nusquam]

You'll get a reroll to wound though, since the wound is allocated against an IC.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Have a look at the wording. Rerolling missed rolls to hit and rolls of 1 to wound.

 

Miss on any roll, reroll.

 

Roll a 1 to wound. Reroll.

[TemujinZero]

I'd totally never noticed that.

[Xenith]

 

 

If I shoot at the unit, does this constitute 'attacking its Preferred Enemy' and hence provide rerolls, even if these shots are being resolved against Tacticals standing in the way?

 

 

Kind of answering your own question there. You are shooting at the unit, not the independent character.

[Caillum]

Have a look at the wording. Rerolling missed rolls to hit and rolls of 1 to wound.

 

Miss on any roll, reroll.

 

Roll a 1 to wound. Reroll.

 

Preferred Enemy doesn't say that. It says "...re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking it's Preferred Enemy." The sentence structure is such that To Hit and To Wound and grouped together. Suggesting that you re-roll ALL To Hit rolls is never going to fly.

 

I believe 6th Edition had a less concrete sentence, but not any more.

[Hesh Kadesh]

If you rolled a 1 to hit, the qualifier for failed to hit wouldn't be necessary.

 

Failed rolls to hit

 

To wound rolls of 1

[Caillum]

Ah! Yes, I see it now. Sorry mate! :)

 

That is VERY interesting... Quite a buff for the rule, if that's how it's meant to be played (and they haven't made a grammatical error).

[Hesh Kadesh]

No drama. Gw don't understand half the rules they write anyway. XD

[SkimaskMohawk]

The grammar on it supports either interpretation sadly so it'll cause a lot of arguments; a comma would have sealed it

[TemujinZero]

Grammatically it goes either way, but one reading relies on the phrase 'failed roll of 1' which doesn't make any sense. Rerolling all failed to hit rolls seems like a cleaner reading to me.

[SkimaskMohawk]

How does it not make sense? You can fail on a roll of 2 or 1 to hit with most marine things, it specifies 1

[Massaen]

I don't follow you -

 

I have BS 4 and roll a 2 to hit - this is a miss and PE can not activate as I have not rolled a 1...

[Hesh Kadesh]

You reroll misses

 

You reroll to wound rolls of 1.

 

Its what the text says. If it was reroll to hit rolls of 1, it would say that.

[SkimaskMohawk]

It says reroll to hit and wound rolls of 1. Grammatically it works more in favor of 1s than all to hits and 1s to wound. There needs to be a comma to break the sentence structure

[Hesh Kadesh]

To hit rolls of one is different than misses.

[Raktra]

That's just cartoonishly picky semantics, and technically incorrect grammar (I know grammar's not the right word, but I can't spell what I mean). If it were the two separate it would be "failed to hit rolls, and to wound rolls of 1".

[Hesh Kadesh]

So missing words is more accurate than a missing comma?

 

You can all play it how you want, I guess. You're not going to get people to agree on it if they disagree. That said, I'm going to continue to play it where I reroll my misses and my to wound rolls of 1. 

 

It's the same thing as that facebook 3-3*6+2 can equal either -13 or -17, depending on where you apply things and in the order you read them. Both can be technically correct.

[Lord Asvaldir]

Honestly if I was playing against someone trying to argue to get all rerolls to hit, I'd say no you don't get that. The rules were clearly meant to let you just reroll 1s like preferred enemy.

[Raktra]

The words here are actually in place though, just left to a later section of the sentence for structural neatness.