Speed of the raven

[Maxamato]

Hi All!

 

A question regarding to the Stratagem: Speed of the Raven ( haven't found anything with the search option):

It allows after advance to shoot and charge.

To the hit modifier still apply? I.e. a Land speeder moves, advance and shoots (after using the Startagem) with the Heavy Bolter.

To he hits with the -1 to hit or without?

 

Thanks in advance!

Regards

Maxamato

[breng77]

I think conventional thinking is yes for heavy weapons and no of assault weapons. You still moved which is what triggers the heavy weapon -1 to hit.

[Maxamato]

Tanks for your answer.

 

But why do you think, that the modifier doesn't count for assault weapons?

 

Isn't clear for me.

[WingCommander]

The -1 modifier applies to both types of weapon, assault and heavy. Nowhere does the text say that the negative modifier does not apply or that the unit counts as having not advanced for the purpose of shooting and assaulting.

[jlmb_123]

The Battle Primer (i.e. rules) says for Assault weapons:

 

A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn. If it does so, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.

 

 

and Heavy weapons:

 

If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.

 

 

The Advancing rule is:

 

When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

 

 

So in the case of Heavy weapons, Speed of the Raven's advantage is that you can advance and shoot. It's still moved, though, so it's at -1. In the case of Assault weapons, Advancing doesn't affect them beyond the existing Assault weapon rule (-1 to shoot when advancing). In both cases, it cuts out the part of the Advancing rule which prevents the unit from charging.

 

In the case of Rapid Fire and grenades (i.e. bikers with bolters), there's no modifier to hit and you can so you can advance - potentially into half range -, fire at full effect (beyond enemy abilities which affect hit rolls)  then charge.

 

Just to steal Maxamato's thread, does everyone agree that you can use Speed of the Raven multiple times in the same turn? I haven't had a game with the new rules yet but I'm considering a mass charge up the table with my two Black Knight units, two Land Speeder units and Attack Bike unit to get some really early shooting (and charges in the case of the BKs) in in one go.

[breng77]

While RAW it applies to assault weapons, I feel strongly that RAI and our impending FAQ will fall in favor of it not applying to assault weapons. It makes little sense that you would be able to fire weapons that cannot fire at all when advancing without penalty, but those that normally can fire when advancing do have a penalty.

[breng77]

As for using it multiple times in 1 turn no you cannot it happens during a game phase. Thus you are limited to one use only.

[jlmb_123]

While RAW it applies to assault weapons, I feel strongly that RAI and our impending FAQ will fall in favor of it not applying to assault weapons. It makes little sense that you would be able to fire weapons that cannot fire at all when advancing without penalty, but those that normally can fire when advancing do have a penalty.

 

 

While RAW it applies to assault weapons, I feel strongly that RAI and our impending FAQ will fall in favor of it not applying to assault weapons. It makes little sense that you would be able to fire weapons that cannot fire at all when advancing without penalty, but those that normally can fire when advancing do have a penalty.

 

I'm not sure I subscribe to that as there's nothing that suggests it. The advantage of SotR is that it lets you advance, shoot and charge. Running a Ravenwing unit with Assault weapons gives you some distinct choices:

 

1) Move (or not) and shoot at full effect. You can still charge.

2) Move, advance and shoot. You can't charge.

3) Move, advance, activate SotR and shoot. You can charge.

 

In the case of (1), the rules don't include any basic modifiers to hit rolls. In the case of (2), there's a -1 penalty ("if it Advanced ...  you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls). In the case of (3) it still applies as you've demonstrably advanced. Nullifying the negative modifier isn't mentioned in the rule. The unit's fulfilled all of the criteria (it has an assault weapon, it's moved and advanced and it's shooting) but there's nothing that says there's any other change to the shooting rules.

 

As for using it multiple times in 1 turn no you cannot it happens during a game phase. Thus you are limited to one use only.

 

I've clearly missed something fundamental!   Can I find that in the main rulebook? Is it under the CP or stratagem rules? Ta in advance!

[breng77]

On the assault weapon thing, to each their own I think intent is clear, and expect it to be FAQ'd as such as has been the case with most things this edition.  To me assault weapons as designed are easier to shoot on the move (you can advance and shoot with them all the time, just with a penalty), I don't see why they would suddenly become harder to use when a stratagem is involved.  As I said currently as RAW I believe you are correct, I just don't believe it is the intent that Pistols/rapid fire weapons suddenly become better than assault weapons when the stratagem is used.  Though if that is the case it is 1 more reason why standard bikers with plasma are better than black knights.

 

 

As for the stratagem being used multiple times yes it is in the matched play mission rules on page 215.  The Strategic Discipline rule.

[Maxamato]

Thanks to all!

 

A brief summary:

Assault weapons gets -1to hit

Heavy weapons gets -1 to hit

Rapid Fire, Pistols etc. shoot without penalties.

 

Right?

[Berzul]

Thanks to all!

 

A brief summary:

Assault weapons gets -1to hit

Heavy weapons gets -1 to hit

Rapid Fire, Pistols etc. shoot without penalties.

 

Right?

 

Right.

Also, since its a stratagem, it is limited to One-Use per phase.

[Maxamato]

Ok, thanks for your support and help. :)

[Solrac]

 

Thanks to all!

 

A brief summary:

Assault weapons gets -1to hit

Heavy weapons gets -1 to hit

Rapid Fire, Pistols etc. shoot without penalties.

 

Right?

 

Right.

Also, since its a stratagem, it is limited to One-Use per phase.

 

 

Remember that the one-per phase rule only applies in matched play. In Narrative or Open play you can use them as much as you want.

[Hoots]

Hi folks

 

I'd also agree that it'll be FAQ'd about heavies and think that you will still suffer the -1 to shooting assault weapons however as we can choose to not overcharge and still use WOTDA to do 2 damage the unit can still be pretty nasty.

 

Additionally it took me a while to register this in my thinking but it's pretty useful to remember that...

 

If your unit SOTR forward, move, advance, shoot and charge; they gain the 4++.  Assuming that the enemy disengage/fallback in their turn your unit will still have the 4++ (against shooting) from the previous advance move it made. nice that you don't just get left hanging out to dry quite as badly as you could. 

 

Hoots

[jlmb_123]

Hi folks

 

I'd also agree that it'll be FAQ'd about heavies and think that you will still suffer the -1 to shooting assault weapons however as we can choose to not overcharge and still use WOTDA to do 2 damage the unit can still be pretty nasty.

 

 

If your unit SOTR forward, move, advance, shoot and charge; they gain the 4++.  Assuming that the enemy disengage/fallback in their turn your unit will still have the 4++ (against shooting) from the previous advance move it made. nice that you don't just get left hanging out to dry quite as badly as you could. 

 

 

On that second point, you get 4++ against Overwatch too. Almost untouchable.

 

I'm not convinced it'll be FAQd. The advantage, as I see it, isn't a sum of weapon type A vs  type B vs type C. It's that you get to move, advance shoot and charge, which is one more thing than you could have done otherwise in the case of Black Knights. It just so happens that two types (rapid fire and grenades) benefit from it in a particular way. I know it's a different game and attitude to previous editions but Librarians never became Ravenwing because of sitting on a bike, despite everyone being certain they should be.

[shabbadoo]

I doubt the rule will be errata'd, as the stratagem is...most importantly...simple and clear. As it is, the stratagem does not change any particular details with regard to weapon types and *resolving* shooting when moving in any way whatsoever. The stratagem only governs that the target unit is now allowed to shoot *any* weapon after advancing, and may even Charge if it wishes. All other core rules apply to how that shooting/assault is conducted, *as mentioned*. If something isn't mentioned, you follow the *standard procedures* (i.e. no penalty to hit with rapid fire weapons). We don't just get to ignore/alter any core rules that are not specifically mentioned.

 

The rule is about simplicity, not about it needing subsections to alter everything just so. Play it as is, and not rules lawyer the hell out of it. We know what the stratagem's rule alters, and it alters only those things. It is perfectly clear. When that can be said with utter certainty, a rule is decent enough. This stratagem breaks two set of rules, just for us, while also having the benefit of activating our units' special ability against enemy Overwatch -  triple bonus score!

 

For simplicity's sake, sometimes we don't get to have your very own Oompa Loompas, Veruca, so could we not just enjoy the room full of candy?

[breng77]

The issue is that as written it makes black knights significantly worse than regular bikes when using it.  Further from a fluff sense it makes no sense.  The errata/ FAQ would be easy and clean either

Errata - this unit may shoot or charge as if it had not advanced

FAQ - "Do units using speed of the raven suffer a -1 penalty when shooting assault weapons?"  "No"

 

Neither makes it any less clean, and I still feel like this is the intent.

[Bryan Blaire]

If that was the previous intent, why wouldn’t they simply have written it in a way as to say that?

 

If the answer to that question was “Well, we forgot about that rule...” then it wasn't intended and can’t be argued that it was, because they didn’t even realize that it would have mattered.

 

If they did realize that the rule was in play and they specifically didn’t change the wording of the rule to account for Assault weapons, then clearly they didn’t intend to write it so that Assault weapons were unaffected.

 

There is really no way to argue “intent” with any kind of clarity or logic here.

[breng77]

Because it is GW and they have a history of poorly considered rules when it comes to RAW?

 

If they did not consider the rule then you can absolutely argue that the intent was to ignore the -1, because the rule was tested without it.  If they tested the game having Speed of the raven allowing black knights to advance and fire on full, then that was their intent, whether they considered the interaction with the assault weapon rule or not.

 

The logic and clarity are easy for intent:

1.) Assault weapons are easier to fire on the advance than any other type of weapon.  This is indicated by them being the only type of weapon allowed to advance and fire at all normally.

2.) If they still suffer from -1 when using Speed of the raven, one needs to argue that somehow, they are no longer the easiest weapons to fire while advancing because they still suffer a penalty.

 

This train of thought makes no logical sense, "Wow when I'm moving super fast this bolter is really hard to fire, but I can manage to shoot this melta gun reasonably well, but thankfully my commander issued a order so now I can shoot my bolter fine, but this melta gun is still a little tricky to fire." the implementation of game rules as written is the only reason this interaction would even exist.

 

Very frequently they don't consider that someone would even think about applying penalties like the one in question.  Over the years I have seen too many RAW answers get FAQ'd to be obviously working like you would expect them too to think otherwise.

 

 

  Listening to the Frontline gaming podcast (some of the guys who play tested the game) they seem to fall in step with the -1 for assault weapons not applying. 

[jlmb_123]

Because it is GW and they have a history of poorly considered rules when it comes to RAW?

I'm not sure that's a great argument, dude. If you think of the relative benefits, it's powerful when taken at the full army level. Any weapons can advance, fire and charge, regardless of type, it just so happens that Assault weapons perform equally as well as other advancing Assault weapons but get to charge too. GW are pretty good at rules: look at Warmachine which had an arseload of rules compared to 6th and 7th ed. 40k.

[Kallas]

GW are pretty good at rules: look at Warmachine which had an arseload of rules compared to 6th and 7th ed. 40k.

Not really. GW have a bad track record for their rules writing. Warmachine is a far tighter system and is more 'zoomed in' (ie, individual models have more freedom).

 

8th Ed is pretty great, it's why I got back into the game after about 6 years, but it still has a lot of loose nuts bolts.

 

Speed of the Raven is definitely an odd one. It's definitely shaky that SotR Assault weapons are worse than SotR Rapid Fire, yet normally that's reversed - that feels like oversight IMO (from an outside perspective! I'm playing Blood Angels). Assault weapons should be better than other weapons when advancing, that's their advantage, and SotR as is makes that untrue.

 

Just my two cents.

[Pvnisher]

 

Because it is GW and they have a history of poorly considered rules when it comes to RAW?

I'm not sure that's a great argument, dude. If you think of the relative benefits, it's powerful when taken at the full army level. Any weapons can advance, fire and charge, regardless of type, it just so happens that Assault weapons perform equally as well as other advancing Assault weapons but get to charge too. GW are pretty good at rules: look at Warmachine which had an arseload of rules compared to 6th and 7th ed. 40k.

When you have to make 10 articles just to explain rules I wouldn’t say that’s something to champion. And yes I know 10 is exaggerated but you get what I mean.

[Bryan Blaire]

 

Because it is GW and they have a history of poorly considered rules when it comes to RAW?

I'm not sure that's a great argument, dude.

You're correct, not only is that not a great argument, it's actually not an argument at all.

 

Saying that they have a history of writing rules poorly is NOT an argument for intent of writing something in a specific way. If it had been intended to be included, then it would have been included in the text.

 

Otherwise you are implying that they literally forgot to reference their own pretty core rule while playtesting, which would basically invalidate their playtesting completely as it would completely miss the point of playtesting.

 

If they do FAQ this with some odd answer that can be inferred from the actual text, then they are once again issuing an Errata in question form, rather than simply issuing an Errata.

 

If they did not consider the rule then you can absolutely argue that the intent was to ignore the -1, because the rule was tested without it. If they tested the game having Speed of the raven allowing black knights to advance and fire on full, then that was their intent, whether they considered the interaction with the assault weapon rule or not.

So, you're saying that if a fire training officer lights a small fire in a car seat, but forgets to check the hose connections or the fill level of the fire extinguishers, that it was the intent of the officer to burn the car down? That's what you just said - something was written and tested while forgetting something else, so that it was forgotten implies that the intent was to ignore it (when in fact it was just forgotten).

 

Doing something while forgetting about an important interaction is not an argument for intent. In this case, it's an argument for crappy playtesting.

 

The logic and clarity are easy for intent:

1.) Assault weapons are easier to fire on the advance than any other type of weapon. This is indicated by them being the only type of weapon allowed to advance and fire at all normally.

2.) If they still suffer from -1 when using Speed of the raven, one needs to argue that somehow, they are no longer the easiest weapons to fire while advancing because they still suffer a penalty.

Or perhaps it's simply an in-built balancing mechanism? Or what was written is what is intended?

 

I get your logic, and even agree with it, but the logic itself doesn't imply intent. The lack of logic in the current rule may imply poor rule writing and play testing though - which defeats the purpose of a "more play tested edition". So one way or another, GW is not following their own intent.

 

Listening to the Frontline gaming podcast (some of the guys who play tested the game) they seem to fall in step with the -1 for assault weapons not applying.

Falling in step doesn't mean much... many people involved in movements and the like have fallen in step with significantly poor consequences for others who both agreed and disagreed with them.

 

Seriously, unless there is some kind of factual documentation that can be brought forward to show what they actually tested and why, anyone can say almost anything was the intent.

 

If they did intend for the rule to eliminate the -1 modifier for Assault weapons, then they should issue an Errata (not a FAQ) to actually change the wording of the rule to reflect what they wanted it to say. If, instead, they intended Rapid Fire (or any other weapon that doesn't already have a modifier) to gain a -1 modifier (or even a -2 modifier, so that Assault weapons were still better), that could also be Errata'd in. Either one could actually be the result of poor proof-reading or poor playtesting. Either would be fine. However, neither are implied by anything factual, or the playtesting (especially since we actually don't know anything about the entirety of the playtesting). There is no evidence for rules as implied in this case.

 

I'd like to hear why the elimination of the -1 modifier for Assault weapons by Speed of the Ravent is more implied than Rapid Fire weapons gaining a -1 modifier to shooting while using the Stratagem.

 

(And I honestly hope that the argument doesn't boil down to "Well, they didn't write that!")

[breng77]

It would boil down to that they did not write that. To me it is more believable that one could assume that advance and shoot would ignore penalties for advancing (normally you cannot shoot) then to assume doing so would incur a penalty.

 

As for the intent based on leaving things out, having a history of poor RAW rules writing is the reason RAI discussion exists at all. If all rules always functioned as written there would never be a question.

 

The issue with playtesting is that it never catches all the issues, especially raw issues like the one in question.

 

 

I've already stated that RAW -1 is correct I just don't think it makes logical sense when you think it through which is why I don't believe it is intended. But I also don't play with assault weapons on any RW units other than flamers so the outcome to this doesn't really effect me other than to reaffirm my thoughts never to run Black knights because the are a poor unit with no role in witch they out perform other choices.

[Bryan Blaire]

It would boil down to that they did not write that.

So the exact same argument you are making applies to not having modifiers (except conveniently ignoring that Heavy Weapons do retain a modifier) as to having modifiers - they did not write that.

 

Logically, it makes as much sense that they forgot to include a -1 modifier for Rapid Fire weapons: Heavy weapons have a -1 modifier, based on the current rule, Assault weapons have a -1 modifier, so it would make sense that Rapid Fire weapon should wouldn't be better at advancing and firing using the Stratagem (especially since Rapid Fire shouldn't be better at firing while advancing than Assault, when they normally can't), so they should have a -1 firing as well.

 

It's even as easy to write: "Rapid Fire weapons have a -1 modifier to hit while using this Stratagem." vs. "Assault weapons ignore their modifier to hit for Advancing and firing while using this Stratagem."

 

So the same logic that shows that you should already ignore an Assault weapon modifier (that logically they shouldn't be worse than Rapid Fire weapons while Advancing and firing) applies to "Rapid Fire weapons should have a -1 modifier". The implied results are identical (Rapid Fire weapons are equal to Assault weapons using the Stratagem), and neither are written either.

 

So there is no logical difference for implied rules between either argument.

 

The issue with playtesting is that it never catches all the issues, especially raw issues like the one in question.

Those are actually exactly the issues that playtesting is supposed to catch, do rules as written fail when written special adjustments are written.

 

Your statement would be like arguing that playtesting (called bug testing in the computer world, something I used to do for software games) an expansion isn't intended to find issues when combined with the main game. You actually do a massive amount of testing on small things like this when playtesting, and when an adjustment is written that is as small as this one is, it's easy to see if you left something off when applying all rules (and if you consistently forgot to apply a main rule during testing and don't see that the two rules create an unintended consequence, that doesn't imply that you intended for that consequence to exist, it implies that you are forgetful and probably shouldn't be playtesting - different type of people are required to write new material versus testing them, they can't always be the same people, or mistakes get made).