Catachan: Burn Them Out

[Wassa]

 

 

This order has two parts:

1. Reroll the number of attacks with flamers and heavy flamers. 
2. When targeted by these weapons, it removes the cover saves for being in cover this phase.

 

The first point is straight forward, but querying the second point:

1. Does the target unit only remove cover saves from those weapons for those attacks?
   or
2. Does the target unit remove cover saves on the target unit from all shooting attacks by the ordered unit for that phase?
   or
3. Does the target unit remove cover saves on the target unit from all shooting attacks by all units for that phase?

 

 

[Tirak]

The rule is pretty clear, it says "In addition, units targeted by models from the ordered unit with these weapons do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover in this phase"

[librisrouge]

I read that as an ordered unit firing at least one flamer at an enemy in cover completely denies them cover saves even against the rest of the weapons. The flamers flush them out, I guess.

[WarriorFish]

The wording is not very clear, but on second reading it seems to come down to two parts: "units targeted by models from the ordered unit with these weapons" and "do not gain any bonus ... this phase". That means by targetting the unit they are denied their cover for the entire phase, regardless of the source of the shooting attack. It makes no mention of the flamer weapons, other than this being a stipulation that the ordered units need 1) to have said weapons and 2) to target them on the target (no mention of actually shooting them..?).

 

It makes sense, given the (not binding) lore blurb. Furthermore standard rule wording is usually more explicit when dealing with specific weapons, which I'd expect to see if it was for flamers only. If you want to get to the detail the OR would be the place to go

[Tirak]

That's not how that reads at all. It's pretty clear that they're talking specifically about the Flamers being the only weapons that ignore the cover save. I honestly don't see how you could read it any other way reasonably.

 

The connection is by "models from the ordered unit with these weapons", it's written that way so that it explicitly says only units from the unit ordered may have this applied to them, and of those units, only ones with the explicitly mentioned flamers and heavy flamers from the first sentence.

[Wassa]

Yes it's the additional "for this phase" that seems unnecessary which is making me think that it's best to "burn them out" of cover and then shoot them, which may actually make this order worth using.

[duz_]

Having re-read the rule and the blurb, it does to me reads like a marker light buff, ie ignores cover for that targeted unit

 

A nice little buff, nothing super OP either seeing as you have to be within 8" to target it with a flamer for the rule to apply

[Shinespider]

I would also read it as denying cover fully.

 

 "units targeted by models from the ordered unit with these weapons"

 

 

This line establishes what enemy the effect is being applied to. The debuff is applied to any unit that is targeted by flamers from the ordered unit.

 

"do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover in this phase"

 

 

This line establishes what the effect actually does, which is that it removes cover saves. It also establishes the duration - until the end of the phase. 

 

In addition, as has been stated, the fluff behind the order is pretty clear - you're using the flamers to drive the enemy out of cover. The point of doing this is to make them more vulnerable to other shots.

[Phubar]

The wording may be unclear and lead to different interpretations but i will use common sense for understanding the rule.

Catachans arw good with flamers so they reroll number of hits and use them efficently enough to deny cover bonus from saves made against those weapons.

So, for me, its no cover only for flamers of the ordered unit, not other weapons or other units.

[Harrowmaster]

If in doubt the best thing to do is use the least powerful interpretation. I'd say email GW and they might include it in an FAQ.

[WarriorFish]

The addition of the "models from this unit" is probably there to make sure the flamers actually target the unit in question (split fire presumably?). As mentioned, if it was purely for this shooting attack there'd be no need to mention the entire phase.

 

It's definitely a rule that could be worded better, I initially thought it was only for the flamers but on closer inspection I realised that it didn't seem to be the case. As always the nature of language (and GW) means things aren't always as clear cut as we'd prefer.

 

As always; when in doubt use the weakest interpretation as the safest bet - opponents always agree to that ;)

[Kierdale]

When a rules query like this comes up I often wonder how the rule is written in some of the foreign language codexes. For most people it wouldn’t matter as a gamer in an all-English environment can’t really claim “In the French/German/Japanese codex it says blah blah blah...” but if you are in a game where your opponent’s main language is different to yours and likewise they have a different-language codex...

 

If I remember I’ll gave a look at the IG codex/chat with the staff next time I’m at my local GW (here in Japan).

[Wassa]

If in doubt the best thing to do is use the least powerful interpretation. I'd say email GW and they might include it in an FAQ.

 

 

Is there an FAQ email address? or is it just the default customer service at  uk.custserv@gwplc.com ?

[Harrowmaster]

 

 

If in doubt the best thing to do is use the least powerful interpretation. I'd say email GW and they might include it in an FAQ.

 

Is there an FAQ email address? or is it just the default customer service at uk.custserv@gwplc.com ?

40kfaq@gwplc.com

[Wassa]

Cheers!