We've been misreading the rules: Revisit the Maleceptor
|
Post by hiveminded on Nov 9, 2014 4:34:46 GMT
Yeah, well...I'm an optimist =p.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddyt on Nov 9, 2014 4:45:55 GMT
Yeah, well...I'm an optimist =p. That's a bit more than optimism bud. You are borderline fantasizing I don't mind your efforts to make this model better, it really is a gorgeous model, that's why it's such a shame that it's rules are so terrible.
|
|
|
Post by brassangel on Nov 9, 2014 9:13:13 GMT
I like the rules; he's just too expensive for them. There are RAW arguments on both sides of this discussion. It needs an FAQ. Without an FAQ, this thread will just be a series of circular arguments. Local players/tourneys will need to decide how the rule will be interpretted in their games. So to help with that discussion, let's look at some numbers: Assuming you need to roll to hit: warp dice, | perils %, | odds wounding L9 enemy, | odd wounding L8 enemy | 3 | 7% | 4% | 5% | 4 | 13% | 10% | 12% | 5 | 20% | 16% | 19% |
Personally, I don't think GW would put out a brand new psyker model that has a greater chance of periling itself with its core power than it does harming the enemy. That's a great point, but he also has 3 other powers to choose from every turn. Then again, I wonder how much better he becomes if he DOESN'T have to roll to hit...
|
|
|
Post by wyliedx on Nov 9, 2014 12:48:58 GMT
This is starting to remind me of the Mawloc rules conundrum where it wasn't clear how to resolve it, how it used a blast but wasnt a shooting attack. Is there any example of a weapon used in the shooting phase that doesn't have the standard weapon profile?
as far as I know, there is no shooting attack without a profile.
if you accept that the wording for witchfire powers is unclear, and read the rest of the chapter.... and every single psychic power in every single book... it all comes together. then when you reread the paragraph understanding that it is unclear, all the context points to the fact that they are only talking about how to resolve powers with profiles. every other power tells you exactly how the powers are solved except powers with profiles. so to be clear, they had to tell you how to solve powers with profiles.... but they put the sentence in the wrong place, breaking the context, and making things unclear.
if you follow the rule "Resolve the Psychic power."
"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful deny the witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its affects according to the instructions in its entry."
the ones with profiles are the only ones we don't have explicit instructions on how to solve them. its why beam and nova, and blast need a distinction, they are the only ones WITH profiles that don't roll to hit. but ALL of those WITHOUT profiles don't roll to hit unless the power specificly states that they do.
however, the rule that precedes witchfire, is "resolving a power" hence, it takes precedence, and it says to do what the power says. explaining why all focused witchfire powers have conditional success rolls, and save conditions built into their effect, overriding the later sentences of the same witchfire paragraph detailing how saves are applied and wounds are allocated.
as for mc=gc, yes...but not hierophant or harridin. Heirodule only...model must be wholly inside 6" of drop pod.
The harridin would fit. It's based is small enough to be with in 6" of the pod.
|
|
|
Post by Yautja on Nov 9, 2014 13:17:57 GMT
If it didn't need to roll to hit I'd probably do an epic U-turn on my opinion of the thing. Let's all wish it to be true LOL
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Nov 9, 2014 13:25:48 GMT
Sorry folks, but the rules are very explicit, and very clear.
"Witchfire powers are shooting attacks." "Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point)" "Psyker...cannot be locked in combat" "witchfire power must roll To Hit,"
There are plenty of ambiguous rules within the 40K BRB.... this is not one of them. Any explanation that includes "what they really meant is...." should be immediately assumed to be incorrect. Psychic Shriek does require a to hit roll.... Psychic Scream does not.
Niloc, I appreciate your attempts to find a way to make this power not a joke, but your explanation keeps revolving around assumptions that have no rules basis. You keep trying to create a distinction between powers with a profile, and those without.... but the rules provide no such distinction. You keep saying that the Witchfire rules only apply to those powers with profiles... but the actual witchfire rules make no such claim.
I will admit, I may not have completely followed your argument... but I would assert that any argument requiring 4 lengthy and convoluted posts should also be suspect from the start.
As I began, the rules are pretty clear... and how do you ignore the 'to hit' requirement, and not ignore the 'LoS' and "not locked in CC" requirements.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Nov 9, 2014 13:27:11 GMT
If it didn't need to roll to hit I'd probably do an epic U-turn on my opinion of the thing. Let's all wish it to be true LOL Its still pretty bad.... Thats the sad part, people keep thinking of ways to 'improve' the model... but all it does it make it a 'bad' unit, instead of a 'laughingstock of 40K' model....
|
|
|
Post by bredkooler on Nov 9, 2014 13:43:00 GMT
First off, i want you to be right Niloc, i really do. Bit i think the problem with your logic is the words "the power is manifested" sadly, that just means it did in fact go off. Then you have to keep following the steps, the next one being roll to hit. The point made that it has a better chance of periling itself than actually doing anything makes me sad cause i love the model.
|
|
|
Post by Yautja on Nov 9, 2014 13:49:17 GMT
*cry*
|
|
|
Post by seanster3000 on Nov 9, 2014 14:00:12 GMT
Yes unfortunately in the competitive arena the Maleceptor falls incredibly short. There is no need to debate, but in my casual games he will most definitely see use. For me I never really want to "pop" vehicles I'd much rather glance them to death and with this guy I think I can manage a glance maybe too if my dice cooperate. I think he can help me glance Flyers down too since anything that ignores cover is the bane of jinking. But that's just me!
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Nov 9, 2014 14:04:49 GMT
Yes unfortunately in the competitive arena the Maleceptor falls incredibly short. There is no need to debate, but in my casual games he will most definitely see use. For me I never really want to "pop" vehicles I'd much rather glance them to death and with this guy I think I can manage a glance maybe too if my dice cooperate. I think he can help me glance Flyers down too since anything that ignores cover is the bane of jinking. But that's just me! I ran the numbers when it first came out... the chances of getting *1* glance are not stellar, and for the Psy Dice cost, and the point cost... there are much better ways of accomplishing that. And needing 6's to hit flyers will make the Maleceptor very sad...
|
|
|
Post by seanster3000 on Nov 9, 2014 14:11:36 GMT
Bah you are right! I will still use him though I bought 2 kits so I can make one of each (Toxicrene and Maleceptor)! I don't care what MathHammer says! LOL
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Nov 9, 2014 15:21:20 GMT
Well I guess Focused Witchfire= Witchfire just like how Gargantuan Creatures=Monstrous Creatures. So we roll for the Maleceptors power and our GC can be dropped. The key there is that the rule clearly states that GC's ARE MC's. Not "...just like a...", or "...counts as...for the purposes of..." It's very specific about what the unit is. My only point to the contrary would be that the creatures don't say "Monstrous Creature" in their Unit Type descriptor on the profile. Tyrannocyte may check for Unit Type, not definition via replacement effect. Thanks, good point. There goes my argument now. But since I am not the brightest build of the bunch, just want to make sure I get this correct. Since the rules say 1 MC=20 for purposes that would mean GC=MC would mean GC=20 as well. But since it only says MC, GC can't be loaded because it doesn't say CG can (permissive rule set). Do I get it right now?
|
|
|
Post by termagant on Nov 9, 2014 15:21:42 GMT
Long time lurker,first time poster here Just logging in to post what I said when I started this same argument on 4chan with the first pics of the rules out: (Manifesting psychic powers sequence) 5-resolve the psychic power: Assuming the psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful deny the witch test, IT (the power) IS NOW RESOLVED Now the psychic powers gives 2 major informations about the execution of the power: -it is a focussed witchfire -the target must make a ld test, if it is failed it suffer wounds Note that there's no mention of the need of the roll required by the witchfire paragraph to be successful to resolve the rest of psychic power too like it is done instead in differently worded rules that go: "a model/models hit suffer..." Similarly psychic powers like emorrage and others that do not force characteristic tests but inflict direct damage to the target instead are not meant to roll successful rolls to hit to take place since the target (not "a model/models hit")is said to suffer a number of HITS at strength X, AP Y Now these that the target suffers are HITS, not SHOTS (the rulebook use "shot" before the roll to hit and "hit" after, analogically to how it uses "hits" before rolling to wound and "wounds" after the roll) so they do not need to roll to hit since the word "hit" implicitly covers the need to roll to hit like when "wounds" do not need to roll to wound So no (successful) roll to hit required in the end At least this what RAW&RAI point to imho Or am I missing something? P.s. (first post) Hi hive
|
|
|
Post by Anggul on Nov 9, 2014 15:30:00 GMT
I still don't think it would be much good even if it didn't have to roll to hit. Sure it doubles the chances from what we thought, but that's still a pretty poor chance for that warp charge and points investment.
|
|
This web site is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.
Adeptus Astartes, Age of Sigmar, Battlefleet Gothic, Black Flame, Black Library, the Black Library logo, BL Publishing, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Blood Bowl, the Blood Bowl logo, The Blood Bowl Spike Device, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos device, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, City of the Damned, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Dark Future, the Double-Headed/Imperial Eagle device, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Epic, Eye of Terror, Fanatic, the Fanatic logo, the Fanatic II logo, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, the Hammer of Sigmar logo, Horned Rat logo, Inferno, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khemri, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Marauder, Mordheim, the Mordheim logo, Necromunda, Necromunda stencil logo, Necromunda Plate logo, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Stormcast Enternals, Skaven, the Skaven symbol devices, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Talisman, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tomb Kings, Trio of Warriors, Twin Tailed Comet Logo, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer Historical, Warhammer Online, Warhammer 40k Device, Warhammer World logo, Warmaster, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Blood Bowl game, the Warhammer world, the Talisaman world, Age of Sigmar and the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 1975-2020, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.