[Necrons] Death Ray number of hits question

[rws]

Hi all! Long time lurker, first time poster, etcetera...

I have a question about the Necron Death Ray, the main weapon of the Doom Scythes.
Without going into too much detail: the Death Ray weapon description says how to draw a line over enemy units. The wording for determining the number of hits on a unit is: "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." (Codex: Necrons, page 50. Matthew Ward, 2011. Games Workshop Ltd.)

Ths sentence in ambiguous, since it can mean "the (number of models in the unit) underneath the line" or "the number of models in the (unit underneath the line)". In other words, in respective order: "That unit of Fire Warriors has three models underneath the line, so I score three hits" or "That unit of Fire Warriors has models underneath the line, has twelve models in total, so I score twelve hits". We could argue about word-usage, intention, and the writing qualities of Ward all day long, but logically this sentence is ambiguous/

My question, therefore, is: What do you think?

[Necron_Lord]

The wording means exactly what it says. You pick a point 12" from the death ray on the Doom Scythe (starting point) and then roll 3d6. You then can make a line with an end point 3d6" away from your starting point. Every unit takes as many hits as it has models under the line (no rolls are made to hit using this weapon). You then have to roll to wound or make armor penetration rolls as necessary. Wounds can then be allocated by the owning player. Basically the model which is under the line isn't necessarily the one which is hit unless its unit size was one.

[Tynskel]

just to make sure I get it:

if you draw your line and you hit one model *each* in 15 units: each unit is hit 15 times?

[rws]

No, that is only one way to read the rule. It all depends on the range of the word "underneath" in "number of models in the unit underneath the line."
It could mean: the number of models underneath the line, belonging to that unit; or it could mean: the number of models belonging to the unit, that is underneath the line. Try not letting what you want to read confuse you.

Off course it is intended to mean the first interpretation, as you state, but it doesn't say so definitely. There is a wide scope interpretation, and a small scope interpretation, and the text doesn't clarify which interpretation to use. That was my whole point in the first place. it probably means we'll have to wait for the FAQ.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't make any sense: I'm a Dutch student, and while I am a fluent reader of the English language (I read English faster than Dutch nowadays), I'm much less able to form my thoughts into the right words.

@Tynskel: no, if fifteen different units have one model underneath the line, each unit is hit as many times as it has models (so fifteen five-man squads are all hit five times). And that is the narrow-scope interpretation, yes.

[danny2460]

Yes we had this in our local store today too we came to the conclusion its missing a comma, meaning it should read .......................... every unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits(,) equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line .

meaning that if you hit 3 units of 10 models but the line only goes over 1 model in each unit each unit only suffers one hit not 30 or 3 each unit.

the hits are only equal to the models (that have the line over) in THAT unit

[MaltonNecromancer]

This seems perfectly clear.

1.) Draw a line.
2.) See what units are hit.
3.) "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." So, if unit alpha has five models, it suffers five hits. If unit beta has eight models, it suffers eight hits. If unit gamma of six friendly Necrons is hit, it suffers six hits.

How is this ambiguous? I get the feeling you want this to be "Every model under the line is hit", but it doesn't say that at all. It's not remotely ambiguous. "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line."

So, to take your example:

"That unit of Fire Warriors has models underneath the line, has twelve models in total, so I score twelve hits"

Yes. Yes it does. The wording doesn't say "models under the line are hit", it says "every unit suffers hits equal to the number of models in the unit". Now, unit is an unambiguous phrase denoting squad, mob, brood, etc... "Model" is as unambiguous as it gets. Where is the confusion?!

I think you're looking for ambiguity where there is none, based largely on the fact that this weapon has no parallel in any other army, and the only ones that do work by only hitting the models the line touches. The Death Ray isn't Jaws of the World Wolf, and it seems perfectly simple.

If the Death Ray line hits a unit of ten models, roll for wounds ten times. Even if only one guy is touched.

Yes, it seems quite powerful. But so are Grey Knights. And Dark Eldar. And pretty much every 5th edition Codex.

[addamsfamily36]

I thought this rule was pretty simple.

say you have 3 units

Unit A, Unit B and Unit C.

You put your start point up to 12 inches away from the doom sycthe and draw a 3d6 line across (as far as the line will go) the three units. any models underneath that line, generate hits much in the way a flamer template only hits models it covers, this line only generates hits from models that fall directly underneath that line.

so say Unit A had 10 models and the line clipped 3, Unit B had 5 models and clipped 2 and Unit C had 6 models and clipped 3, Unit A would take 3 hits, Unit B 2 hits and Unit C 3 hits, distributed as per normal shooting.

[addamsfamily36]

This seems perfectly clear.

1.) Draw a line.
2.) See what units are hit.
3.) "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." So, if unit of marines alpha has five models, it suffers five hits. If unit beta of marines has eight models, it suffers eight hits. If unit gamma of six friendly Necrons is hit, it suffers six hits.

How is this ambiguous? I get the feeling you want this to be "Every model under the line is hit", but it doesn't say that at all. It's not remotely ambiguous. "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line."

So, to take your example:

"That unit of Fire Warriors has models underneath the line, has twelve models in total, so I score twelve hits"

Yes. Yes it does. The wording doesn't say "models under the line are hit", it says "every unit", which is an unambiguous phrase denoting squad, mob, brood, etc...

I think you're looking for ambiguity where there is none, based largely on the fact that this weapon has no parallel in any other army, and the only ones that do work by only hitting the models the line touches. The Death Ray isn't Jaws of the World Wolf, and it seems perfectly simple.

If the Death Ray line hits a unit of ten models, roll for wounds ten times. Even if only one guy is touched.

Yes, it seems quite powerful. But so are Grey Knights. And Dark Eldar. And pretty much every 5th edition Codex.
MaltonNecromancer is online now Report Post Reply With Quote

this is completely wrong

[dannyat2460]

MaltonNecromancer your description would be perfectly fine if it didnt say underneath the line at the end.

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit.

explains better what you are saying the rule means than

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

but like i said earlier if you insert a comma the sentance makes perfect sence

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits(,) equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

[addamsfamily36]

Once your unit has been hit by the line, you take a number of hits equal to the amount of models in that unit that are underneath that line, not every model in the unit is hit. otherwise why wouldn't it just state, every model in the unit hit by the line is hit.

[addamsfamily36]

MaltonNecromancer your description would be perfectly fine if it didnt say underneath the line at the end.

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit.

explains better what you are saying the rule means than

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

but like i said earlier if you insert a comma the sentance makes perfect sence

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits(,) equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

Even without the comma it makes sense. But your right all the same.

[dannyat2460]

Yes unfortunatly this can be taken both ways at the moment but with a little thought about the implications if it was every model in the unit this anti tank weapon can sudenly take out a unit of tyranid warriors with one hit of the unit causing instant death with no saves, yes i agree that there are equaly powerful things eg blood tallons but still

[addamsfamily36]

Yes unfortunatly this can be taken both ways at the moment but with a little thought about the implications if it was every model in the unit this anti tank weapon can sudenly take out a unit of tyranid warriors with one hit of the unit causing instant death with no saves, yes i agree that there are equaly powerful things eg blood tallons but still

I personally don;t see a way in which it can be taken any way but that mentioned by yourself and i. It has the line models underneath the line.

That line is the hit generating part of the weapon.

any other reading of that rule is wishful thinking and i have never packed up in a game before, but if an opponent pulled that one on me I'd say yeh nice game have fun never playing anyone ever again.

[addamsfamily36]

P.s i also don;t think blood talons are overly game changing. your only fighting one unit, and due to rolling to hit, it averages out. sometimes a jammy git will kill a horde, but i rarely kill more than 6-8 (which i know is amazing, but i only run the one pair and my dread rarely makes it to combat). this doom sycthe wishful thinking idea on the other hand, could result in multiple units of varying size being removed from play from one shot. tyranids and orks come to mind at how this "interpretation" would be ridiculous.

[Wildcard]

I think the part: "Every unit(friendly of enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line"

is to clarify that if you can draw that line over 3 units, on unit A you can get 4 models under it, on B you get 5 and on C you get 1 (that is 10 models total), so you don't get:
- to roll for 10 wounds and allocate them as you like;
- To roll 10 wounds for every unit hit

Just so, that it is 4 wound rolls for unit A, 5 on B and 1 on C

I would like to know how 'wide' this line can be though, a tiny cotton thread or your average school ruler (roughly two fingers wide) :)

And, if you are right in front of, say a leman russ (a model 5" long approx and 14 armor on front, 10 on the rear) so that you can pull the initial starting point for the weapon to its back, then roll and nominate the beams direction towards its front so that its "swipe" will hit rear first: Now is this hit to front or rear armor? :)

[thecactusman17]

The word Line has a dictionary definition, and a GW definition.

They are identical.

You use a hairline. Use a piece of string, or alternatively, the edge of your tape measure. The line should be as thin as is practical to accurately determine what bases are or are not under the line.

For further info, please refer to the Space Wolves FAQ, where they answer this question explicitly in regards to Jaws of the World Wolf.

Ranged attacks vs. vehicles are made from the direction of the firing weapon, against the nearest visible facing, unless they are Barrage weapons or have a rule saying otherwise. Check your rulebook.

[UltramarineFan]

I thought this rule was pretty simple.

say you have 3 units

Unit A, Unit B and Unit C.

You put your start point up to 12 inches away from the doom sycthe and draw a 3d6 line across (as far as the line will go) the three units. any models underneath that line, generate hits much in the way a flamer template only hits models it covers, this line only generates hits from models that fall directly underneath that line.

so say Unit A had 10 models and the line clipped 3, Unit B had 5 models and clipped 2 and Unit C had 6 models and clipped 3, Unit A would take 3 hits, Unit B 2 hits and Unit C 3 hits, distributed as per normal shooting.

That's exactly how I read the rule. They wouldn't have had the extraneous explanation if they didn't mean it this way. It would have just said 'units underneath the line suffer a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit'. The fact it specifies 'equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line ' shows the intention.

[Morgan Darkstar]

That's exactly how I read the rule. They wouldn't have had the extraneous explanation if they didn't mean it this way. It would have just said 'units underneath the line suffer a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit'. The fact it specifies 'equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line ' shows the intention.

In that case why doesn't it just say models under the line? why does is specify number of models In the unit underneath the line? we all know GW is lax when it comes to rules :rolleyes:

Personally I think it's 50/50 so wait for a FAQ. Untill then roll a dice, rather than storming off in a huff! :p

[The Madman]

Retracted.

[dannyat2460]

The rules for Imotekh the storm lords staff of the destroyer works by hit one model in a unit wound all models in the unit this is because the rules for the staff of the destroyer state:

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit

so why would the Death ray need extra clarification if it worked in the same way, The only conclusion you can come to is it dosnt work in the same way!

[dannyat2460]

it works the same way as the Jaws of the wolf in terms of hitting models. models underneth the line are hit, no one else.

No you allocate as per the rules of shooting

[Bean]

I can definitely see where both sides are coming from on this one, and the fault really is sloppy wording on the part of games workshop.

The problem, of course, is that this

"Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line."

is actually ambiguous. It could be taken as either:

Every unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models which are both in that uni and underneath the line.

or

Every unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models which are in the unit that is underneath the line.

Both of these are legitimate, since, in this case, the referent of "underneath the line" could be either "models" or "unit"--standard English grammar allows for either of these to be the intended referent, and were there sufficient context to make clear which was, in fact, intended, it wouldn't be a problem.

But, there isn't, and (in an unusual twist) both interpretations are actually legitimate as far as English is concerned.

I tend towards the first one, though, and here's why:

You'll note that the second iteration ends in an odd way. For one thing, there could be multiple units underneath the line--the definite article "the" is inappropriate in this case, unless it is meant to specify that you're supposed to handle number of hits on a unit by unit basis. But, of course, if that's what it's meant to do, then that second "underneath the line" part is superfluous--if "the unit" refers back to any given one of the initial set of referents (every unit underneath the line) then re-stating "underneath the line" isn't necessary. Every possible referent of "the unit" is "underneath the line" anyway, so restating that qualifier would just be redundant.

So, interpreting the phrase in the second way leaves the rule badly written--not badly in that, were this second interpretation the intent, it would not work as intended, but badly in that, were this second interpretation the intent, it would some superfluous and essentially non-functional verbiage.

The first interpretation, on the other hand, incorporates all of the verbiage better and leaves none of it superfluous, and I'm inclined to say, as a result, that this is probably what was intended.

[Tynskel]

Since it is the models underneath the line, theory predicts that if you had a 15 lvl building you could hit 15 models stacked on top of each other. Right?

[Necron_Lord]

This seems perfectly clear.

1.) Draw a line.
2.) See what units are hit.
3.) "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." So, if unit alpha has five models, it suffers five hits. If unit beta has eight models, it suffers eight hits. If unit gamma of six friendly Necrons is hit, it suffers six hits.

How is this ambiguous? I get the feeling you want this to be "Every model under the line is hit", but it doesn't say that at all. It's not remotely ambiguous. "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line."

So, to take your example:

"That unit of Fire Warriors has models underneath the line, has twelve models in total, so I score twelve hits"

Yes. Yes it does. The wording doesn't say "models under the line are hit", it says "every unit suffers hits equal to the number of models in the unit". Now, unit is an unambiguous phrase denoting squad, mob, brood, etc... "Model" is as unambiguous as it gets. Where is the confusion?!

I think you're looking for ambiguity where there is none, based largely on the fact that this weapon has no parallel in any other army, and the only ones that do work by only hitting the models the line touches. The Death Ray isn't Jaws of the World Wolf, and it seems perfectly simple.

If the Death Ray line hits a unit of ten models, roll for wounds ten times. Even if only one guy is touched.

Yes, it seems quite powerful. But so are Grey Knights. And Dark Eldar. And pretty much every 5th edition Codex.

Enjoy your 'what do you mean by "is"' Bill Clinton argument, sir, while you can. When the FAQ comes out you will be proven totally WRONG!!! Read the Power from Pain rule and then read the Dark Eldar FAQ. Even though I am a long standing Necron player and your interpretation of the weapon would be advantageous for me when playing against non-Necron armies I never in a million years would have the cheek to try to interpret it like you did. That is a WAAC d-bag move. Poorly played, sir!

[Bean]

Since it is the models underneath the line, theory predicts that if you had a 15 lvl building you could hit 15 models stacked on top of each other. Right?

Yup. Seems right to me.

[Bean]

Enjoy your 'what do you mean by "is"' Bill Clinton argument, sir, while you can. When the FAQ comes out you will be proven totally WRONG!!! Read the Power from Pain rule and then read the Dark Eldar FAQ. Even though I am a long standing Necron player and your interpretation of the weapon would be advantageous for me when playing against non-Necron armies I never in a million years would have the cheek to try to interpret it like you did. That is a WAAC d-bag move. Poorly played, sir!

I disagree, and I think you're being overly harsh. His interpretation is well grounded in English, as I note above. I think it's the wrong one, but I don't think it warrants the labels WAAC and d-bag.

[Tynskel]

Enjoy your 'what do you mean by "is"' Bill Clinton argument, sir, while you can. When the FAQ comes out you will be proven totally WRONG!!! Read the Power from Pain rule and then read the Dark Eldar FAQ. Even though I am a long standing Necron player and your interpretation of the weapon would be advantageous for me when playing against non-Necron armies I never in a million years would have the cheek to try to interpret it like you did. That is a WAAC d-bag move. Poorly played, sir!

You must be that Necrons lord that still thinks he's flesh, and fights honorably. I am surprised that your soul is still intact.

Your brethren, on the other hand, are trying to suck everyone's soul...

[Hive Mind]

Yup. Seems right to me.

Despite the Rulebook explicitly saying that you can only target models on one level with area effect weapons?

This isn't 'sloppy wording' at all, it's yet another case of the average person having the reading and logical skills of a five year old.

[scarred1986]

..... died (((((
I always look here http://yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.

[Bean]

Despite the Rulebook explicitly saying that you can only target models on one level with area effect weapons?

This isn't 'sloppy wording' at all, it's yet another case of the average person having the reading and logical skills of a five year old.

I'm not aware of any rule in the rulebook which says that you can only target models on one level with area effect weapons.

My understanding is that there is a similar rule that is specific to blast weapons and template weapons, but the Death Ray is neither.

Care to provide a quote of the rule you're talking about?

[The Madman]

The rules for Imotekh the storm lords staff of the destroyer works by hit one model in a unit wound all models in the unit this is because the rules for the staff of the destroyer state:

Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit

so why would the Death ray need extra clarification if it worked in the same way, The only conclusion you can come to is it dosnt work in the same way!

just to clear it up abit (exactly written as it is in the book).

DOOM SCYTHE
Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneth the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneth the line.

IMOTEKH THE STORMLORD
Any unit, friendly or enemy, under this line takes a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line.

from what i see both come to the same conclusion, just phrased differently. both rules make it sound like everyone in the unit is hit, so even if you hit a single guardsman in a 50 man squad, all are hit. though i have a feeling Ward meant to say that it hits the individual models under the line not the whole unit.

[Necron_Lord]

I disagree, and I think you're being overly harsh. His interpretation is well grounded in English, as I note above. I think it's the wrong one, but I don't think it warrants the labels WAAC and d-bag.

You don't have any sense of perspective. GW hardly ever words anything precisely (even in their FAQs) and with an AS weapon like this I seriously doubt that was the intention. In my opinion, if someone would argue hard for MaltonNecronmancer's interpretation I would consider that person a WAAC d-bag who shoud GTFO of the hobby. There are too many people like that who ruin the game for more casual players like myself.

[lattd]

Ive read this rule 4 or 5 times now and all i can come up with is the unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models under the line. I really cant read it any other way, does that make me illiterate?

[Hive Mind]

Ive read this rule 4 or 5 times now and all i can come up with is the unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models under the line. I really cant read it any other way, does that make me illiterate?

No, quite the opposite.

[Deadlift]

Ive read this rule 4 or 5 times now and all i can come up with is the unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models under the line. I really cant read it any other way, does that make me illiterate?

I read it as.......
I shoot death ray, under the line is one model from a unit of 10 models, that unit takes 10 hits. So has to make 10 saves (STR 10 so unlikely able to make a save)
Next unit has one model from a unit of five, that unit gets hit five times. Etc etc. I dont get the confusion.

[Hive Mind]

Agreed.
I shoot death ray, under the line is one model from a unit of 10 models, that unit takes 10 hits. So has to make 10 saves (STR 10 so unlikely able to make a save)
Next unit has one model from a unit of five, that unit gets hit five times. Etc etc. I dont get the confusion.

Read what he/she said again.

[Bean]

You don't have any sense of perspective. GW hardly ever words anything precisely (even in their FAQs) and with an AS weapon like this I seriously doubt that was the intention. In my opinion, if someone would argue hard for MaltonNecronmancer's interpretation I would consider that person a WAAC d-bag who shoud GTFO of the hobby. There are too many people like that who ruin the game for more casual players like myself.

Casual? Hardly. Even if there was absolutely no basis for this interpretation, you'd still be off the deep end.

Believing that a rule says something other than what it says might put you in error, but it doesn't make you a bad person, and it doesn't revoke your right to participate in the hobby.

People like this don't ruin the game for casual players. Players like you, who say they're "casual" but who really care so much that even a little dissent sends them into a frothing rage, ruin the game for everyone.

In reacting the way you have, here, you have made yourself the bad guy--your own behavior is far, far more objectionable than the behavior to which you're objecting.


Also, Hive Mind, may I presume from your failure to provide the rule to which you alluded to earlier that you are admitting that no such rule exists?

[lattd]

Bean i think Hive Mind is talking about the template rule.

Shouldn't we look at the reaver blade vines rule for a similar idea how this rule is going to work?

[Bean]

He might be, but the Death Ray isn't a template--why would a rule for template weapons be relevant?

Out of curiosity, what bearing would the blade-veins rule have?

[lattd]

The straight line and you take as many wounds as the models hit by the straight line. I have no DE codex with me so i can't remember how its worded but this is how i believe the rule is meant.

[Bean]

The straight line and you take as many wounds as the models hit by the straight line. I have no DE codex with me so i can't remember how its worded but this is how i believe the rule is meant.

I don't have a DE codex, either, but my recollection is that blade vanes works a little differently.

[lattd]

I believe your right but it would be the best rule to look at in terms of how this is meant to be worded.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Having read everyone's posts here, the crux is that there are two possible readings.

a.) Only models under the line are hit. (Travels in a direct line through things, like Schwarzenegger's rail gun's in "Eraser").
b.) Units under the line are hit, with each model in that unit suffering one hit. (Zaps things which conduct the Death Ray into the rest of their unit, like the wrath of Yahweh in the ending of "Raiders of The Lost Ark")

As I've said, b.) seems correct to me, although I can see that there is a strong case for a.) as well. The problem is a lack of an example in the Codex. Which I'm sure the FAQ will correct.

I'm also going to point out that some people seem to be getting very het up over this; might I remind you of "Ratatouille":

http://www.the-leaping-lamp.com/images/ratatouille-anton-ego-orders.jpg

Perspective, yes? :) It's just a single unit in a game, and the FAQ will deal with it, and we'll come up with our own interpretations until then, and there's no point complaining about poor writing because approximately 100 billion other people have pointed out how poor Matt Ward is before you, and they've accomplished nothing, just like the complaints about Vince Russo do nothing, and he destroyed his company with losses of $63million in a single year. I want female marines; other people want Matt Ward to die. Neither of us will ever get what we want at the moment, but at least the Ward-haters have his retirement to look forwards to. I'm never going to see female marines.

So yup. Two possible perspectives. As for me being a WAAC player, well, b.) makes sense to me, and I'm not a Necron player. When the Death Ray kills my troops, I'll just find a way around it for the next battle. Same as I do for every new threat.

[Lerra]

I played a game against a Necron player with 3 Doomscythes and Imotek. We used the "suffer a number of hits equal to the squad size" interpretation. It's game-breakingly overpowerered. If this ends up being the correct interpretation, it will destroy competitive play unless Doomscythes are banned or restricted.

Imo, this is one of those cases were RAW is almost irrelevant because we simply cannot allow this. It's stupidly powerful.

[Tynskel]

the dark eldar alludes to moving over units, and the debate is that if I move 3" can I move 18" in a different direction to count as moving over a unit?

This necron rule is in line with all other 'line' rules: Virbro Cannon, JoWW, Blood Lance. You have to physically make a line.

[Kawauso]

It seems pretty clear that it hits the models under the line, not all models in the units under the line. That's stupid powerful. I don't get how people can believe that that's how it works.

It says they suffer a number of hits equal to "the number of models in the unit under the line". I can see where the misunderstanding comes from. It should have been worded more clearly.

But is says the number of models in the unit that are under the line are hit. The models under the line. Not the unit.

It would have been worded something like "equal to the number of the models in the unit", otherwise. There would be no need to specify that the unit is under the line, in that instance. Clearly it's under the line...that much has been determined already.

There is absolutely no way at all that a potential 18" line attack with a range of 12" is intended to hit all models in every unit it touches. Even if it were S3 AP- that would be bonkers. It's a Cleansing Flame shooting attack that doesn't have to roll to hit. And there are people that think this is the intent, at S10 AP1? Yikes...

[Gir]

It seems pretty clear that it hits the models under the line, not all models in the units under the line. That's stupid powerful. I don't get how people can believe that that's how it works.

It says they suffer a number of hits equal to "the number of models in the unit under the line". I can see where the misunderstanding comes from. It should have been worded more clearly.

But is says the number of models in the unit that are under the line are hit. The models under the line. Not the unit.

It would have been worded something like "equal to the number of the models in the unit", otherwise. There would be no need to specify that the unit is under the line, in that instance. Clearly it's under the line...that much has been determined already.

There is absolutely no way at all that a potential 18" line attack with a range of 12" is intended to hit all models in every unit it touches. Even if it were S3 AP- that would be bonkers. It's a Cleansing Flame shooting attack that doesn't have to roll to hit. And there are people that think this is the intent, at S10 AP1? Yikes...

That's my thought. 175pts for an extremely fast model the can whip out armies in a single shot? I'll take 3!

Seriously, you get one hit for each model under the line. It's worded strangely so the hits apply to the squad, so wound allocation applies and you can't use it to "snipe". It also seems aimed at taking care of parking lot armies more then anything else.

[Rapture]

Each model in the unit suffering one hit? What? Does anyone honestly think that is a good idea?

[Lemt]

RAW you can go either way. You can read it as models underneath the line, or as models in the unit underneath the line. I'd say it NEEDS an errata.

[Bean]

Each model in the unit suffering one hit? What? Does anyone honestly think that is a good idea?

I really doubt anyone does. That, of course, isn't really the issue.


RAW you can go either way. You can read it as models underneath the line, or as models in the unit underneath the line. I'd say it NEEDS an errata.

Agreed. It's one of those rare, actually ambivalent wordings. It needs to be addressed--there simply is no way to resolve it using the extant rules.

[Hive Mind]

The problem isn't Games Workshop. If you need this to be FAQd to make sense of it then the problem is you; you're a ****ing moron and you should be euthanised/sterilised for the good of humanity.

Report to your local clinic immediately.

[Bean]

The problem isn't Games Workshop. If you need this to be FAQd to make sense of it then the problem is you; you're a ****ing moron and you should be euthanised/sterilised for the good of humanity.

Report to your local clinic immediately.

This opinion illustrates little beyond the limited level of your own literacy. I'm an English major--this is what I do, and I am telling you that this wording is actually ambiguous. This isn't really a debatable assertion--either interpretation could be accurately represented by the wording that was used.

Now, if you want to say that the intent of the rule is very likely one interpretation or the other, I might be inclined to agree, but the assertion that the actual wording of the rule isn't ambiguous is actually just ignorant.

Oh, and are you ever going to provide the rule to which you alluded earlier, or have you given up on that front?

[addamsfamily36]

ok heres a question for those in favor of "everyone is hit"

say you have 3 Units, a 10 man squad, a 5 man squad and an 8 man squad.

By the wording, it says every unit underneath the line suffers hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

so which unit do you pick?

3 units are hit, but it says they suffer hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line, but there are 3? do they all take 10 hits? all 5 hits? or all 8 hits? how do you decide?

Im not trying to be mean, but if we want to get technical with wording and language, then explain to me how it works with every model getting hit in every unit, when it specifically states unit underneath the line?

[Bean]

ok heres a question for those in favor of "everyone is hit"

say you have 3 Units, a 10 man squad, a 5 man squad and an 8 man squad.

By the wording, it says every unit underneath the line suffers hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

so which unit do you pick?

3 units are hit, but it says they suffer hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line, but there are 3? do they all take 10 hits? all 5 hits? or all 8 hits? how do you decide?

Im not trying to be mean, but if we want to get technical with wording and language, then explain to me how it works with every model getting hit in every unit, when it specifically states unit underneath the line?

This is the question.

The answer that's generally been given is that "the unit" is "whichever unit you're currently working out the number of hits for," but, while this is certainly one of the things that could be meant by "the unit," it's not the only thing.

Ultimately, the clumsiness of this "the unit" wording when interpreted this way is the reason I think it was probably meant to be interpreted the other way.

[Gir]

It can be read either way, but you have to pretty crazy to try and argue that every model gets hit.

[addamsfamily36]

This is the question.

The answer that's generally been given is that "the unit" is "whichever unit you're currently working out the number of hits for," but, while this is certainly one of the things that could be meant by "the unit," it's not the only thing.

Ultimately, the clumsiness of this "the unit" wording when interpreted this way is the reason I think it was probably meant to be interpreted the other way.

You can read it both ways, but it only works one way.

"the unit" is the key part along with "underneath the line"

if you go on the basis that you use every model in the unit to generate hits, which unit do you use to generate those hits. And although a consensus may be that you use whichever unit you are currently working on, that rule simply is not there it just says unit, it does not specify which unit.

Read the other way however and the rule works fine, because each unit takes a number of hits equal to the models hit by the line within their own units.

so although i can see how it can be read two ways, the rule actually only works one way by both intention and rules as written.

[Bean]

You can read it both ways, but it only works one way.

"the unit" is the key part along with "underneath the line"

if you go on the basis that you use every model in the unit to generate hits, which unit do you use to generate those hits. And although a consensus may be that you use whichever unit you are currently working on, that rule simply is not there it just says unit, it does not specify which unit.

Read the other way however and the rule works fine, because each unit takes a number of hits equal to the models hit by the line within their own units.

so although i can see how it can be read two ways, the rule actually only works one way by both intention and rules as written.

This isn't actually true. The phrase "the unit" could refer to lots of things, and it's not actually possible, given the information we have, to say that it does necessarily refer to one thing. If the line passed over A, B, and C, it would be exactly as legitimate to say that "the unit" is A as it is to say that "the unit" is C, or that "the unit is" A when working out hits against A and C when working out hits against C.

The rules don't tell us which it is--but any of those interpretations can be expressed, correctly, by the wording of the rule.

This means that the rule is ambiguous--several different potential rules could all be expressed using the verbiage in the book. There isn't any concrete way to tell which potential rule was meant to be expressed. That's what ambiguity in language means.

The rule does work in all of the ways that have been suggested--all of those suggestions could be accurately expressed by the rule's wording.

Or, in other words, you are simply wrong. I recognize that this conclusion requires a more sophisticated analysis of the language than many of you are used to putting forth, but it is accurate none-the-less.

[Bean]

It can be read either way, but you have to pretty crazy to try and argue that every model gets hit.

Only from a perspective of fairness--not from a perspective of trying to determine what the rule actually says. The rule could actually say a variety of different things.

I agree that it would be pretty crazy if it actually put out one hit for each model in each unit it touched, but that's kind of beside the issue, at this point. The issue is whether or not it does--not whether or not it should, and the issue isn't one that can be resolved by the extant rules.

[Gir]

Only from a perspective of fairness--not from a perspective of trying to determine what the rule actually says. The rule could actually say a variety of different things.

I agree that it would be pretty crazy if it actually put out one hit for each model in each unit it touched, but that's kind of beside the issue, at this point. The issue is whether or not it does--not whether or not it should, and the issue isn't one that can be resolved by the extant rules.

The rule does whatever the hell you want it to. It's a game of toy soldiers, not laws created by an execution happy dictator.

[Bean]

The rule does whatever the hell you want it to. It's a game of toy soldiers, not laws created by an execution happy dictator.

Not really. You can play by any rules you want, but any given rule only does what it says it does. More importantly, the rules in the rulebook form a framework around which we build the consensus that underpins every game of 40k we play. This consensus is necessary, but establishing it from scratch before every game would take too much time to be practical, so we generally presume on the part of our opponents a tacit acceptance of the text of the rules as they are printed in the rulebook, with only (perhaps) a handful of of common exceptions and house rules.

The purpose of the rules forum, then, is two-fold:

first, it helps us come to an understanding of what the text of the rules entails, so that we can better meet the inevitable tacit expectation on the part of our opponents that we will play according to those rules, and

second, it helps us become familiar with that handful of common exceptions and house rules.

However, though both facets are important, it is equally important to keep them separate in our minds and refrain from conflating common house rules with actual rules.

[Gir]

No one in there right mind could think that the weapon is meant to hit everything in the squad, therefore the whole argument is pointless.

[Bean]

No one in there right mind could think that the weapon is meant to hit everything in the squad, therefore the whole argument is pointless.

At least in part, I'm inclined to agree. Knowing what the rule says is important. However, it's been fairly firmly established that the rule is ambiguous and won't actually say one thing, concretely, without an errata of some sort.

Given that the one set of interpretations produces a highly undesirable result, the conclusion that a house rule implementing the other interpretation should be standard seems like a reasonable one to draw from the discussion, and I think that, too, has been fairly well established by this point.

So, to that extent, further discussion probably has little value. I don't think the discussion on the whole is inherently pointless, though.

[thecactusman17]

In that case why doesn't it just say models under the line? why does is specify number of models In the unit underneath the line? we all know GW is lax when it comes to rules :rolleyes:

Personally I think it's 50/50 so wait for a FAQ. Untill then roll a dice, rather than storming off in a huff! :p

There is nothing ambiguous here. Each unit takes hits equal to the number of models in that unit which are passed through by the line. This is the only interpretation possible. The only way one can come to a different interpretation is to willfully ignore specific words of the sentence in question.

It is a weird sentence and punctuated poorly, no doubt. But it is not actually incorrect or ambiguous in what it is trying to say. This is not a Sanguine Sword issue, just a poor editing job.

[Deadlift]

Yeah I have reread the rule myself, Its the number of hits = the number of models under the line, so in essence if your line covers 3 marines from a group of 10 then 3 of those marines are hit, however it does not have to be the 3 marines actually hit that take the wounds. Which is actually quite dangerous for the Necrons, if there is a heavy weapon in the unit hit its potentially gonna hurt.

so maybe wishful thinking on my part to begin with lol

However anyone who is stringing out a unit in a line is asking for a flank hit, that could be devastating. Castle-ing up on a board could be a bit silly against a trio of death rays as well.

[Tynskel]

No one in there right mind could think that the weapon is meant to hit everything in the squad, therefore the whole argument is pointless.

Well, I must have been thinking with my left mind when I read it, because I thought it did a chain-lightning effect. Toasting everything. I wasn't thinking about it being 'overpowered', I was just thinking: "Oh Wow! Cool!"

The other way is interesting--- like a Tri-Pod beam weapon. If it passes through anything in that line, poof! Ashes.

[rws]

Agreed. It's one of those rare, actually ambivalent wordings. It needs to be addressed--there simply is no way to resolve it using the extant rules.


There is nothing ambiguous here. Each unit takes hits equal to the number of models in that unit which are passed through by the line. This is the only interpretation possible. The only way one can come to a different interpretation is to willfully ignore specific words of the sentence in question.

It is a weird sentence and punctuated poorly, no doubt. But it is not actually incorrect or ambiguous in what it is trying to say. This is not a Sanguine Sword issue, just a poor editing job.

It's ambiguous, and I can prove it, but I will not do so here because it involves a two-month course in computational linguïstics. Any point I can make has already been made, so I will not do so again. But in short: the point is that it can be interpreted in two ways, not that one or the other is necessarily correct.

@Bean: thank you, for saying what I find difficult to phrase properly, and for teaching me the word "ambivalent".

[DrWobbles]

To all the people trying to flaunt their education on the interwebs: This is not a debate on the english language or computational linguistics (WTF?). This is about a rule in a game. You know how it works, stop being stubborn donkeys.

[Deadlift]

To all the people trying to flaunt their education on the interwebs: This is not a debate on the english language or computational linguistics (WTF?). This is about a rule in a game. You know how it works, stop being stubborn donkeys.

lol, tbh most of the arguments around here seem to degenerate into an english language debate. I try to steer clear as I am more of a "spade is a spade" type and with all these intellects on the forums, I am liable to make myself look stupid :D

[addamsfamily36]

To all the people trying to flaunt their education on the interwebs: This is not a debate on the english language or computational linguistics (WTF?). This is about a rule in a game. You know how it works, stop being stubborn donkeys.


HAHA oh you made my day. you also beat me to it. i was going to post the exact same thing.

On another note,

Bean, sorry to single you out, but your response to my last post kinda asked for it.

You can talk about language and interpretation all you like, but in your post about "the Unit", you only further proved my point.

The phrase "the unit" is too loose to be used for the "everyone is hit" interpretation of how the death ray works. You can't just pick a unit because there is no indication to which "the unit" the rule is referring to.

On the other hand taken by a unit by unit basis, with only those under the line generating hits, the term "the unit" makes perfect sense.

This game is designed to be played by those as young as 11 not those with language degrees.

[Wildeybeast]

The wording is ambigious and can be read either way as several people have stated, so I'd suggest looking for parallels elsewhere to house rule it until it gets FAQ'd. Jaws of the world wolf sheds some light, for example, how wide the line is, but I also think that great cannons in fantasy offer some help. Before people start raging, I know it's a different game system and different rules, but the principle mechanic is the same and all I'm suggesting is a make-do house rule. The great cannon rule states that the 'line' is a special kind of template, the length and width of the line. So, if we treat the line as a unique template, then suddenly the wording becomes clear: the emphasis is "suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line."
Not exactly a clear cut solution I admit, but given that we can debate all day about exactly how to interpret the wording, the most common sense approach seems to be to house rule it in a way that works for your group and this parallel works for ours.

[Tynskel]

Sorry to say, mate, but a cannon is a projectile, whereas this is a beam. The origin is 'constant', but the position on the ground is changing. A cannon has a changing 'origin' point, ie. the ball moves along the path.

What this allows is the beam to have a 2D presence in 40k, where the cannon is 1D (I state it this way, because you can always do a coordinate transfer and eliminate the extra Ds).

What does this mean in gameplay? Well, depends on whether you think the beam is 'chain-lightning' or if the beam can only effect the models it touches. But to make things more complicated, unlike JoWW, in the second usage of the beam, the models it touches are not necessarily in the path of the beam.

[Wildeybeast]

A fair point, but I dont see how that matters as the actual mechanics in terms of how they work in the rules are the same. Both start at a designated point a on the board and draw a line to randomly determined point b. Things under both lines are hit. The question is what is hit? Fantasy makes it nice and easy to understand, the doom ray rules do not. Given that they both work the same way in other respects, I think it is reasonable to assume that they are both unique template weapons, until GW says otherwise. I'm not saying everyone has to agree, it just seems like a reasonable and rational solution to an otherwise rather awkward problem.

[Hive Mind]

This opinion illustrates little beyond the limited level of your own literacy. I'm an English major--this is what I do, and I am telling you that this wording is actually ambiguous. This isn't really a debatable assertion--either interpretation could be accurately represented by the wording that was used.


++ Edited by the inquisition; insults are not tolerated++

While the wording might be ambiguous, the rule is not ambiguous in the slightest, you (and some others) just seem to delight in taking anything that isn't written with the absolute lowest-common denominator in mind and making it say ridiculous things without even a hint of regard to everything else we know about the game.



Oh, and are you ever going to provide the rule to which you alluded earlier, or have you given up on that front?

Delve into a debate that requires a logical deduction with a person that has proven themselves without a shadow of a doubt to not have even a passing familiarity with logic? No, I'm good. I'll save myself the effort and just wait here until yet another FAQ comes out and says that yet again, I'm right and that most people are total morons.

Also, to add to what I said earlier, if you can't figure out what 'area effect' means then you maybe shouldn't be waving your willy around on the internet about your linguistic prowess.

Order up.

[Tynskel]

sorry, mate, but you cannot prove that either version of the death ray is the correct interpretation.

[Tynskel]

A fair point, but I dont see how that matters as the actual mechanics in terms of how they work in the rules are the same. Both start at a designated point a on the board and draw a line to randomly determined point b. Things under both lines are hit. The question is what is hit? Fantasy makes it nice and easy to understand, the doom ray rules do not. Given that they both work the same way in other respects, I think it is reasonable to assume that they are both unique template weapons, until GW says otherwise. I'm not saying everyone has to agree, it just seems like a reasonable and rational solution to an otherwise rather awkward problem.

you are missing the point that I brought up--- the Cannon is flying through the opponent. the deathray is a continious beam from the origin to the ground. They do not operate the same way.

You have to remember, when GW makes their rules, they make them with fluff in mind.

[addamsfamily36]

sorry, mate, but you cannot prove that either version of the death ray is the correct interpretation.

Actually, no one has given a definitive answer to my question which unit is "the unit" when calculating hits for the "everyone" is hit method.

as iv'e mentioned, 3 units could be hit, but the rule states "the unit" generates hits. As you can't simply pick jsut one unit when there are 3, thats a massive flaw in the mechanics for that interpretation of the rule.

The "underneath the line" interpretation of the rule however has no such problems.

[addamsfamily36]

And another thing that works against the everyone is hit theory is this:

"Every unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line".

That is the quoted rule from the codex. Ok so lets see what happens when i do this :

"Every unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit ".

anyone see what i did? i removed the part "underneath the line". suddenly everyone in the unit is hit, happy days :D

but wait, i can't just remove parts of a rule, i best add that bit back on the end

"Every unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line".

The end part clearly demonstrates what generates the hits. otherwise you would just leave it out.

and the first person to say "well its GW who knows why they added that bit on or what they intended by adding it" is by all purposes a moron.

[SeattleDV8]

Well the Nercons do have a FAQ already, but its the Spanish site.
I do not speak or read Spanish but those that do say the only the Models under the line are hit.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2010238a_Necrones_0.0_a_Noviembre_2011.pdf

[Bean]

Great, you got a useless degree from some cow college somewhere. That's relevant. Do you find it useful to correct people's grammar while you give them their burgers?

While the wording might be ambiguous, the rule is not ambiguous in the slightest, you (and some others) just seem to delight in taking anything that isn't written with the absolute lowest-common denominator in mind and making it say ridiculous things without even a hint of regard to everything else we know about the game.

Delve into a debate that requires a logical deduction with a person that has proven themselves without a shadow of a doubt to not have even a passing familiarity with logic? No, I'm good. I'll save myself the effort and just wait here until yet another FAQ comes out and says that yet again, I'm right and that most people are total morons.

Also, to add to what I said earlier, if you can't figure out what 'area effect' means then you maybe shouldn't be waving your willy around on the internet about your linguistic prowess.

Order up.

I'm not even really sure what to say, but it sounds like you've got some personal issues to work through, and I think I'd better leave you to that.

At least you're willing to make it clear that you don't actually have any worthwhile argument to present and no-one should take you seriously.

Also, you might want to look up deduction. It doesn't exactly take a useless degree to know what it means, but you seem to have missed it.

[dannyat2460]

From the Spanish FaQ (thanks SeattleDV8)
Google translate says.

CORRECTION
P47 .- dimensional corridor. Replace the first sentence
"[...] Choose a friend Necron unit other than a vehicle
[...]"
P50 .- Ray of death. Replace the third sentence: "Each
unit (both friendly and enemy) that it is under this line,
suffer a number of hits equal to the number of thumbnails
of the unit who are under the line. "
P53 .- Platform repair. Replace the third sentence
"[...] added by the unit 1D3 thumbnails (thumbnails
can move and act normally that turn). this does not
can make the number of models in the unit exceeds
their initial number. "


Please note the inclusion of a comma into the rules, which now seperates the hit generating part from the wound allocation part meaning that it is only models (thumbnails acording to google) directly under the line that are hit but the wounds caused can be allocated arround the unit

[Tynskel]

Actually, no one has given a definitive answer to my question which unit is "the unit" when calculating hits for the "everyone" is hit method.

as iv'e mentioned, 3 units could be hit, but the rule states "the unit" generates hits. As you can't simply pick jsut one unit when there are 3, thats a massive flaw in the mechanics for that interpretation of the rule.

The "underneath the line" interpretation of the rule however has no such problems.

simply, 'the unit' is the unit you are directly referring to at the time of decision making. How hard is that?

[DrLove42]

FAQ'd.

Now stop arguing, GW has spoken

[Bean]

From the Spanish FaQ (thanks SeattleDV8)
Google translate says.

CORRECTION
P47 .- dimensional corridor. Replace the first sentence
"[...] Choose a friend Necron unit other than a vehicle
[...]"
P50 .- Ray of death. Replace the third sentence: "Each
unit (both friendly and enemy) that it is under this line,
suffer a number of hits equal to the number of thumbnails
of the unit who are under the line. "
P53 .- Platform repair. Replace the third sentence
"[...] added by the unit 1D3 thumbnails (thumbnails
can move and act normally that turn). this does not
can make the number of models in the unit exceeds
their initial number. "


Please note the inclusion of a comma into the rules, which now seperates the hit generating part from the wound allocation part meaning that it is only models (thumbnails acording to google) directly under the line that are hit but the wounds caused can be allocated arround the unit

The text you quote here isn't sufficient.

"Each unit (both friendly and enemy) that it is under this line, suffer a number of hits equal to the number of thumbnails of the unit who are under the line."

The only comma in this is misplaced and non-functional It doesn't bear at all on the discussion.

It's possible that the "who are" is sufficient to make your point, but given the vagaries of your translation, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in this. Wait for an English version to come out, or find a better translator.

[dannyat2460]

exactly what is hard to understand about,

a number of hits equal to the number of (models) (in) the unit (that) are under the line.

and the comma is perfectly placed and fully functional it seperates the sentance, in such a way that makes it easy to understand its meaning

[Bean]

exactly what is hard to understand about,

a number of hits equal to the number of (models) (in) the unit (that) are under the line.

and the comma is perfectly placed and fully functional it seperates the sentance, in such a way that makes it easy to understand its meaning

Nothing is hard to understand about that, but the comma doesn't add any meaning to that--or change the meaning of the sentence, as a whole, at all. It's a misplaced comma. It does no semantic work in the sentence.

The important part is the "that," but, of course, "that" isn't the word that your translation actually gave us--and I'd like to know what word or phrase is actually supposed to be in that position before I base any judgments on your translation. It's pretty easy to illustrate, actually:


Each unit under the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line.

Each unit under the line suffers, a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line.

Do these two sentences say different things? Not at all; the second is just the first with an extraneous comma--a comma between two elements of one clause that don't need to be separated from each other.

Compare that to this:

Each unit under the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit, under the line.

Here, the comma marks "under the line" as a list item alongside "models in the unit." A comma in this position would give us an answer to our question.

What would be better still would be:

Each unit under the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit that are under the line. Here, the "are" denotes unequivocally that the "under the line" portion refers to the plural "models" rather than the singular "unit."

The translation does include a "who are" which would be sufficient if we could take the translation at face value, but its poor quality makes that proposition dubious.

And (of course) no matter how you cut it, the comma between "line" and "suffer" is irrelevant.



It's also worth noting that this,

"and the comma is perfectly placed and fully functional it seperates the sentance, in such a way that makes it easy to understand its meaning"

makes it pretty clear that you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to comma usage. Your comma, here, is equally non-functional.

[dannyat2460]

well why havnt you translated it if you dont trust mine or googles you have access to the internet and you have been given the link to the FaQ what more do you want people to do for you

[Bean]

I hadn't noticed Seattle's post with the link to the FAQ.

Looks like the translation of the last part is essentially correct.

The comma is still irrelevant. =P


Edit--the important part:

Like "are," the phrase "se encuentren" (reflexive--meaning essentially, "that can be found") is conjugated for a plural referent. This limits the possible scope of referents to "models" and excludes "the unit." This quite straightforwardly indicates that only models under the line are counted, and that (in turn) resolves the issue.

[Morgan Darkstar]

http://bothbrainsandbeauty.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/cat-saying-hooray.jpg?w=500&h=333

Now we can argue about something else :D

[Hive Mind]

I'm not even really sure what to say, but it sounds like you've got some personal issues to work through, and I think I'd better leave you to that.

At least you're willing to make it clear that you don't actually have any worthwhile argument to present and no-one should take you seriously.

Also, you might want to look up deduction. It doesn't exactly take a useless degree to know what it means, but you seem to have missed it.

I have issues with you, that is all.

Oh, and wait a minute, what's that? A FAQ that says I'm right? Res ipsa loquitur old love, res ipsa loquitur.

[Bean]

I have issues with you, that is all.

Oh, and wait a minute, what's that? A FAQ that says I'm right? Res ipsa loquitur old love, res ipsa loquitur.

Nope. It's an errata that changes the wording of the rule.

If Games Workshop had agreed with you that the wording was sufficient, an FAQ would have been used. As it is, they specifically changed the wording by way of an errata--demonstrating quite clearly that they agreed with me as to its insufficiency.

So much for your vaunted powers of deduction. =P

Honestly, I'm not sure why I bother responding to you, anymore.
No-one could point out your intellectual insufficiency better than you do yourself.

[Morgan Darkstar]

What spoke for itself, the rule?

Apparently not very well, as it needed to be changed.

[Hive Mind]

An Errata that changes the wording of the rule so that it says to morons what smarter people said it said all along.

++censored by the inquisition++

The problem with your 'method' of interpretation Bean ol' love is that while you are just smart enough to have acquired a little bit of knowledge, you are not smart enough to realise that the little knowledge you possess is totally inadequate on its own and so you keep trying to decide issues without full possession of relevant factors.

To someone who looks only at the language of a rule, this could be problematic as we have seen. To someone who looks at the bigger picture and considers analogous precedent, logic and all other relevant factors it is not in question. One leads to posting half-baked ideas and one leads to posting the correct response first time.

Apply your major and figure out which one is you and which one is me, my old fruit.


What spoke for itself, the rule?

Apparently not very well, as it needed to be changed.

No, simply that I was correct. Again.

[Bean]

An Errata that changes the wording of the rule so that it says to morons what smarter people said it said all along. You will, of course, have applied your cow college Third and used your no doubt unimpeachable skills to note that I did in fact agree that the wording may be ambiguous but said that the rule was in no way ambiguous.

The problem with your 'method' of interpretation Bean ol' love is that while you are just smart enough to have acquired a little bit of knowledge, you are not smart enough to realise that the little knowledge you possess is totally inadequate on its own and so you keep trying to decide issues without full possession of relevant factors.

To someone who looks only at the language of a rule, this could be problematic as we have seen. To someone who looks at the bigger picture and considers analogous precedent, logic and all other relevant factors it is not in question. One leads to posting half-baked ideas and one leads to posting the correct response first time.

Apply your major and figure out which one is you and which one is me, my old fruit.

See what I mean? You do all my work for me.

Thanks! =)

[Morgan Darkstar]

To someone who looks only at the language of a rule, this could be problematic as we have seen. To someone who looks at the bigger picture and considers analogous precedent, logic and all other relevant factors it is not in question.

You see the problem I have with this statement is that 40k is a game, more specifically a game children should be able to play.

therefore the rules should be taken as they are, you shouldn't need a degree to fathom them.

[Bean]

You don't need a degree. Bean claims to have a degree and still can't fathom them. You just need half a brain.

You've gotten confused again.

I called every detail of this, basically. I pointed out the ambiguity in the language, suggested that it would be errata-ed--I even correctly called the change in the language that the errata would use.

At every turn, I have been correct on this one. All of my assertions have been validated to the greatest extent any such assertion can be.

++ Edited by the inquisition; insults are not tolerated++

[Morgan Darkstar]

++ Edited by the inquisition; insults are not tolerated++

Aww. I want to know what it said. :(

[Hive Mind]

I want to know why my posts containing insults have been left unaltered and why the one that did not contain any insults was deleted.

[Immortal]

I'll be sure to find and delete your other posts that contain insulting language. As for posts that i edited or have already deleted by either you or Bean, they all contained insults or language that could be seen as such.
Continue your debate in a civil fashion or this thread will be closed and I'll put you both in time out.

-Immortal

[Bean]

I'll be sure to find and delete your other posts that contain insulting language. As for posts that i edited or have already deleted by either you or Bean, they all contained insults or language that could be seen as such.
Continue your debate in a civil fashion or this thread will be closed and I'll put you both in time out.

-Immortal

I don't think there's actually any debate left--just us poking at each other. And, amusing as that has been, I'm basically done.

[lattd]

I want to know how bean knows that his predicted change is correct when we do not have an errata yet?

[Bean]

I want to know how bean knows that his predicted change is correct when we do not have an errata yet?

Someone provided a link to a Spanish errata a couple of pages ago. It's pretty straight-forward.

[Crevab]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that errata needed because the Spanish codex said the Death Ray hits every model in the unit?

[Bean]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that errata needed because the Spanish codex said the Death Ray hits every model in the unit?

Do you have the original text of the rule in the Spanish Codex?

More importantly, I guess, does it matter?

[Crevab]

Unfortunately, no I don't have it.

And it's not needed, but it seems it would soothe/enrage a few egos around here

[SeattleDV8]

Doesn't matter in the least what the wording was in the Codex because the errata has changed it.

[puma3105]

..... died (((((
I always look here http://yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.

[Tynskel]

Frog Blast the Ventcore!

[dannyat2460]

Frog Blast the Ventcore!

Am i missing the joke here?

[Tynskel]

Well, the conversation has pretty much ended in gibberish.
So, I decided to add my own.


You should google it.