Guest Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Okay, invisibility says we hit on 6s in melee. If I have a unit, like DW Knights, where they have precision strikes on 5+, which rule takes precedence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 On subject, how does invisibility interact with weapons/units/special rules that hit on a fixed number (like in the assault phase)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psilence Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Precision strikes allow the attacking player to allocate wound placement, rather than the owning player, it is an effect, not a modification of the number needed to hit. So with the DE Knights in melee example they still need 6's to hit the invisible unit, but all of those 6's would allow for a precision strike. As for fixed numbers to hit, it's late and I can't think of any. :p Have an example besides invisibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Huh. I guess I just assumed that Precision Strikes had the same limitation as Precision Shots where they don't work if you need 6s. Regardless, Psilence has it right. If you get a Precision Strike, you get to Allocate the resulting Wound, but only if you actually generate a Wound. It doesn't alter the procedure in any other way. So if you get a result that would be a Precision Strike, but it misses, it's no different than if you rolled a Precision Strike and then failed to Wound. In either case, there's no Wound for you to Allocate. Other fixed to-hit numbers, I guess you'd roll off for which took precedence each Round, since that seems to be GW's usual solution. Kharne is the only example I can think of off the top of my head at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Precision strikes allow the attacking player to allocate wound placement, rather than the owning player, it is an effect, not a modification of the number needed to hit. So with the DE Knights in melee example they still need 6's to hit the invisible unit, but all of those 6's would allow for a precision strike. As for fixed numbers to hit, it's late and I can't think of any. :p Have an example besides invisibility? Deathwing knights.... Anyway, the reason I ask relates to the wording of the precision strike ability. As written(first paragraph/sentence only): "If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a "precision strike." Note how it assumes the 6 to hit is also a hit. As written, a roll of 6 to hit will always hit. GW poorly written rules... Regarding the allocation of wounds, that part of the rule is the second paragraph. As written, if a model has a modified precision strike rule that requires a roll of, in example, 5+, then it would hit on a 5+ regardless of rules to the contrary. EDIT: Looks like the DA FAQ doesn't give them the 5+ precision strike in this edition, just a regular Precision strike. Not sure if any 5+ Precision Strikes exist in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Huh. I guess I just assumed that Precision Strikes had the same limitation as Precision Shots where they don't work if you need 6s. Regardless, Psilence has it right. If you get a Precision Strike, you get to Allocate the resulting Wound, but only if you actually generate a Wound. It doesn't alter the procedure in any other way. So if you get a result that would be a Precision Strike, but it misses, it's no different than if you rolled a Precision Strike and then failed to Wound. In either case, there's no Wound for you to Allocate. Other fixed to-hit numbers, I guess you'd roll off for which took precedence each Round, since that seems to be GW's usual solution. Kharne is the only example I can think of off the top of my head at the moment. In this case, isn't Invisibility a BRB rule, so codex would take precedence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I can't say for sure without looking at the exact wording of Kharne's Rule. It may allow for exceptions like that. If he is hitting on 6s, tho, I feel bad for any of his buddies in that Combat ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBF Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 A lot of people play it on Kharn's turn he hits on 2+ and on the other player's turn he he hits on 6s . It's not official but a decent compromise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 A lot of people play it on Kharn's turn he hits on 2+ and on the other player's turn he he hits on 6s . It's not official but a decent compromise. That's generally how I see it and would play it myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Decent compromise!? What is this, some kind of namby pamby game for children!? WE NEED OFFICIAL RAW rulings or nothing! Everything else is heresy! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 A lot of people play it on Kharn's turn he hits on 2+ and on the other player's turn he he hits on 6s . It's not official but a decent compromise. Could be wrong, but I think the official ruling is that codex trumps BRB. Invisibility is BRB, Kharne is codex. Do I have this wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 There is no official ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 7th Ed BRB doesn't have the blurb about Codex trumping BRB? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 7th Ed BRB doesn't have the blurb about Codex trumping BRB? Page 13, BRB, "Basic versus Advanced" Clearly says that codex (or other GW publication) trumps BRB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Thanks for finding that, I went through the book before I posted, but skipped over the box because of the page it was on. Whoops. But yes it says Basic Rules (Moving, Shooting, Close Combat, and Morale) are always TRUMPED by Advanced rules (anything else). Advanced Rules in the BRB are ALWAYS TRUMPED by Codex or other Publication. So, by the book, Kharn always runs as Kharn is printed in CSM, Invisibility be damned! However, what it sounds like players have been doing is applying real world logic and sportsmanship to their games and going "The unit is invisible, Kharn can't see Invisible Units (or can he???? dun dun dun!!!!)....half the time." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Page 17 of the BRB has "Sequencing" on bottom right. you'll occasionally find two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time... When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is resolves the order. I think this is what gets people going on 2+ Kharns Turn, 6+ Psyker's Turn, because the Chaos player will always choose to resolve the Psyker's rule before Gorechild's rule, and vica verca. I think supporters of this line would argue that these are two rules that are resolved at the same time, instead of a conflict arising between a rule listed in the BRB and a rule listed in a Codex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Page 17 of the BRB has "Sequencing" on bottom right. I think this is what gets people going on 2+ Kharns Turn, 6+ Psyker's Turn, because the Chaos player will always choose to resolve the Psyker's rule before Gorechild's rule, and vica verca. I think supporters of this line would argue that these are two rules that are resolved at the same time, instead of a conflict arising between a rule listed in the BRB and a rule listed in a Codex. Which is true if you have two equal rules conflicting. In this case, they are not equal, as codex explicitly trumps BRB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.