Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
A Thread has popped up on another forum I visit and it is a rather interesting one that I didn't realise until it did.

Perfect Timing
As soon as his consciousness pierces the veil of the Warp, a rush of images floods the diviner’s mind, foretelling the actions of his enemies, down to the merest microsecond. Armed with this information, the diviner’s allies can predict exactly when their foes will peer out from behind cover and expose themselves to a lethal head shot.
Perfect Timing is a blessing that targets the Psyker. Whilst this power is in effect, the Psyker and his unit's weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule.
Now this has been the same description since 6th edition at least. Though back in 6th edition, psy spells like Flickering Fire / Smite or whatever classed as Weapons for the purpose of the shooting phase and stuff, though could not overwatch.
Now in 7th edition it seems that there is no reference to them being a weapon. Though the Witchfire bit says they are shooting attacks and have profiles similar to shooting weapons and says "like other shooting weapons" in reference to snap shots. Then flips on itself a line or 2 down saying "Unlike firing a shooting weapon though, a Psyker can manifest several different witchfire powers..."

So on reading the spell fluff it seems to suggest that the precognition allows you to target people at the opportune time. But the rules only buff the weapons.

Now this leaves 3 options
1) Psyker abilities can never benefit from Perfect Timing, as they are not weapons.
2) Due to it saying "the Psyker and his unit's weapons have...", means that the Psyker gains ignore cover on any ability he uses, but only his units weapons gain the same bonus. This means that a Herald in a unit of Horrors could use Perfect Timing and benefit from it when he casts Flickering Fire (as "the Psyker"), but the unit of Horrors ("the Unit") also casting flickering fire could not as it is not a weapon.
3) Psychic attacks are weapons. Because in the case of the Psyker the weapon they are using is "The Warp" or "His Mind" or whatever.

The weapon in the case of the sorcerer is the warp, or there mind of whatever. It is still a weapon regardless of what they are doing with it.
If I went around killing people with a spoon then that is a weapon regardless of how hard I argue it is a utensil.
I am also going to start rolling all my dice by throwing them at you because they are dice and are never a weapon in your crazy logic world.
This was also paired with Kharn vs Invisibility. Though that one is easy to work as as Kharn Always hits on a 2+ and Invis "in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6". Is both defeated by 1stly the Codex over ruling the Core Rulebook, and 2ndly the word ALWAYS in Kharns description.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Now to answer the question set above from the other thread

I have been being dumb this whole time. The answer had been staring me in the face this whole time.
Under the topic of 'Weapons' in the rule book it describes 2 weapon profiles and the difference being if the range is - it is melee and if it has a number or hellstorm or template it is a shooting weapon.
Now this by itself does not make my smite or whatever a weapon. However all these thing have another rule at the end. Something like 'Assault' or 'Heavy'. The only reference to how these rules are used in every case comes attached to the word 'Weapons'. So to find out how 'Assault' works you need to read a bit just under 'More than one weapon' for 'assault weapons'. If you scroll a couple of pages on to the reference bit of that chapter where it gives the lowdown of how they all work in brief with the little picture. It does not just list them as 'Pistol', 'Rapid Fire', 'Assault', 'Heavy'... it lists them all as 'Pistol Weapons', 'Rapid Fire Weapons', 'Assault Weapons', 'Heavy Weapons'...
Without those definitions the words at the end of the spell profile have no meaning as it might say assault. But the only reference to assault outside of 'Assault Weapons' is the Assault Phase.
However if a spell like 'Purge Soul' allowed cover saves then it would not gain the benifit due to no weapon profile.

Another example of how right i am and stupid i was is the spells 'Cleansing Flame', 'Sunburst' or 'Inferno'. All of these spells have the 'Ignore Cover' rule. This rule says
Ignores Cover
This weapon fires ammunition that cheats an enemy of his shelter.
Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds, glancing hits or penetrating hits caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule.
What if this psy attack is not a weapon means the rule becomes invalid as the rule says that 'hits caused by weapons with', and the psy attack would not be a weapon.

TL:DR Just read the bit either side of the quote, but the rest backs the point up nicely.

These thoughts were brought to you at about 4AM when i woke up with low blood sugar.
Yeah... after 2 pages of back and forth with some people, that whole thing dawned on me at 4AM while eating some toast and drinking some pineapple juice to stop myself collapsing in a heap on the floor...
I guess it goes to show you that the whole thing of making better discussions when you have to control your baser instincts (such as needing to pee, or in this case preserving my life) really works...
I wonder what other grand works I could do if I just nearly killed myself at 4am every day :p... and how much better the 40K rulebook would be if we could all clog every toilets at GW HQ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Witchfires are psychic shooting attacks that work 'just like' when shooting a ranged weapon in that they must roll to-hit and to-wound the same way. Since Perfect Timing only affects weapons specifically, other psychic powers are not included in the Ignores Cover bubble it provides. Vaz makes the point you're trying to argue against looking for precedent from other examples, it comes down to that the BRB doesn't include any type of psychic powers in the Weapons section ergo psychic powers aren't considered weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Another example of how right i am and stupid i was is the spells 'Cleansing Flame', 'Sunburst' or 'Inferno'. All of these spells have the 'Ignore Cover' rule. This rule says
Ignores Cover
This weapon fires ammunition that cheats an enemy of his shelter.
Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds, glancing hits or penetrating hits caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule.
What if this psy attack is not a weapon means the rule becomes invalid as the rule says that 'hits caused by weapons with', and the psy attack would not be a weapon.
I think that is the one that seals it. Because if the psy attacks listed above have the ignores cover special rule. And that special rule specifically says '..caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule.' So if the psy attack is not a weapon, then the ignores cover special rule could not apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Yes, the Ignores Cover USR cites 'weapons'. No, Witchfires aren't weapons as per the rules for Witchfire powers and the Weapons section of the BRB.

The IC rule applies to those powers because it's specifically states that it does since Witchfires use weapon's profiles. As a bonus, those are all fire-based powers and every other instance of a flame/template weapon also has this USR. Coincidence or rules as intended? Fiery Form is the only psychic power that actually has, written specifically into it, the ability to affect how other powers work. If the IC USR wording sets a precedent for what a weapon is (regardless of what the BRB clearly defines as a 'weapon'...because that doesn't help you prove your point) then the wording of Fiery Form should set a precedent that for a power to affect the way another power works it must be specifically written in.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Coincidence or rules as intended?
...wait, the RAI was anything but absolutely clear on this one?

RAW, then no, you don't get Ignores Cover with Witchfires, but I don't see how being able to perfectly judge when your opponent will expose himself lets you kill him with your pistol but not with your force lightning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Well as said the clear defining thing is that those 3 powers I listed all contain the "Ignores Cover" USR, and the Ignores Cover USR only effects weapons. Thus Psy attacks with a weapon style profile must be weapons.
OTHERWISE those 3 powers would not have the USR, they would have a bit of additional text like with 'Psychic Shriek' that has a bit that says 'Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek' OR 'Haemorrhage' That model must pass a single Toughness test or suffer a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed. OR a coulple of others.
So Psychic attacks with weapon profiles are classed as weapons. Otherwise the spells with 'Ignores Cover' USR have a pointless bit of text there when it should have been listed somewhere else to say "These attacks ignore cover saves."

Fiery Form is the only psychic power that actually has, written specifically into it, the ability to affect how other powers work.
But also not that the Fiery Form one that specifically says it works with other powers ONLY works with other Pyromancy powers. So you could not use it on your Biomancy Smite for instance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
Well as said the clear defining thing is that those 3 powers I listed all contain the "Ignores Cover" USR, and the Ignores Cover USR only effects weapons. Thus Psy attacks with a weapon style profile must be weapons.
No they aren't

RAW, the Ignores Cover special rule has no effect, as it's not a weapon.

Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds, glancing hits or penetrating hits caused by
weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule.
There is no mention of what happens to Psychic Powers with the Ignores Cover special rule, they default to normal.

RAW and Common Sense don't always makes sense, and there's a difference between RAW; rules as written, RAI; rules as intentioned, and the lesser known, but more applicable, Rules as Common Sense Dictates. RACSD is that the use of weapons wrt; Ignores Cover is simply as a result of the

OTHERWISE those 3 powers would not have the USR, they would have a bit of additional text like with 'Psychic Shriek' that has a bit that says 'Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek' OR 'Haemorrhage' That model must pass a single Toughness test or suffer a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed. OR a coulple of others.
This is more likely a cause of the rules writers not recognising that "weapons" refers to those which are within the sections for weapons. Every reference of a witchfire power states that it's a power, and not actually a weapon.

So Psychic attacks with weapon profiles are classed as weapons.
Not RAW. Nowhere is this explicitly spelled out - and the nearest we get is that Witchfire Powers are stated to be "[having] profiles similar to ranged weapons". 'Similar to' being the operative, not "treated as", "counts as", or "are" or in whatever combination explicitly allows them to be effected by weapon special rules.

Otherwise the spells with 'Ignores Cover' USR have a pointless bit of text there when it should have been listed somewhere else to say "These attacks ignore cover saves."
In a perfect world, yes.

In regards to your example of Kharn and Invisibility - erm, nope, it's not Kharn's trumps Invis because it says "always", because Invis also states "only". They are two mutually irreconceivable rules, which require a roll off to see which is in effect.

And the first rule in "general principles" is also "The Most Important Rule"

In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound
to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can’t seem
to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really
close call, and players don’t agree on the precise outcome.
Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to
interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner
befitting the better class of Imperial Citizen, of course).
If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a
rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the
game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides.
Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily
continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.
In this instance, this is where most people agree that the reference of "weapons" in ignores cover is a large generalisation, rather than an explicit limit, similar to Haywire - Haywire grenades are not "weapons" as they do not fall under the ranged/melee weapons distinctions in the BRB, but still have the haywire rule. Instead, they ignore that wording and apply it RACSD/RAI, and progress.

If you were playing in a tournament, sans a tournament organiser/DM houseruling otherwise, you can, and will successfully argue as above - but the roll off for whichever rule would occur.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Vaz - Acronym. 'Voice of Reason'. As coined by National Dyslexia Association (DNA).

I'd rep, but I can't. Common sense should be the first port of call in any non-competitive environment, not some fallback used as a 'weak' counter to counter-intuitive RAW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
In regards to your example of Kharn and Invisibility - erm, nope, it's not Kharn's trumps Invis because it says "always", because Invis also states "only". They are two mutually irreconceivable rules, which require a roll off to see which is in effect.

And the first rule in "general principles" is also "The Most Important Rule"

In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound
to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can’t seem
to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really
close call, and players don’t agree on the precise outcome.
Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to
interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner
befitting the better class of Imperial Citizen, of course).
If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a
rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the
game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides.
Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily
continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.
In this instance, this is where most people agree that the reference of "weapons" in ignores cover is a large generalisation, rather than an explicit limit, similar to Haywire - Haywire grenades are not "weapons" as they do not fall under the ranged/melee weapons distinctions in the BRB, but still have the haywire rule. Instead, they ignore that wording and apply it RACSD/RAI, and progress.

If you were playing in a tournament, sans a tournament organiser/DM houseruling otherwise, you can, and will successfully argue as above - but the roll off for whichever rule would occur.
Actually in General Principals Section of the rule book as the last line of BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED.

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence
So as the Kharn rule is in his Codex, while Invis is in the Rulebook, then Kharn wins :)

If you are going to go down the because it doesn't specifically say thing then I will be taking 3 Twin Linked Vulcan Mega-Bolters for my Hurricane Bolters. and I think my normal Marines will have them to. Because in the case of Hurricane Bolters they have 3 Twin-Linked Boltguns and for Marines they come with Boltguns. And under the Boltguns section in the Ranged Weapons Statlines bit in the rulebook it lists the profiles for Bolt Pistols, Boltguns, Stormbolters, Heavy Bolters and Vulcan Mega-Bolters.


WEAPONS
WEAPON PROFILES
Every weapon has a profile. Here are 2 examples:
Then shows a profile for a Boltgun and a Powersword
RANGE
If the weapon's profile contains a '-' it is (unless otherwise stated) a melee weapon. If it contains a number, or 'Template', or 'Hellstorm' it is a shooting weapon.



Also as said before under Witchfire it actually says that Witchfire is a shooting attack... similar to ranged weapons... same as with other shooting weapons... Unlike firing a shooting weapon...

So in that small bit it says you are making a shooting attack. It is similar to a ranged weapon. Shares some components of other shooting weapons. BUT unlike firing a shooting weapon.
So reading all that through (though more completely as I wasn't gunna copy the whole bit down). It means it is not a Ranged Weapon, but it IS a Shooting Weapon, but it is not Fired.

Still case and point. It is a WEAPON!
Also as said before the whole thing with Heavy, Rapid Fire, Assault and all that are all clasifications under WEAPONS and only under WEAPONS. Otherwise they have no rule set to pull from.

RAW, the Ignores Cover special rule has no effect, as it's not a weapon.
But where in the book does it say they are not weapons? Cos above I have found several bits of text saying they are.

This is more likely a cause of the rules writers not recognising that "weapons" refers to those which are within the sections for weapons. Every reference of a witchfire power states that it's a power, and not actually a weapon.
That is another odd thing to say as that means nothing the Orks use are weapons, or Tau, or Eldar, or Dark Eldar, Or Necron, Or the vast majority of Imperial Gear, including Grey Knights stuff...

Infact the first line under "RANGED WEAPONS OF THE 41st MILLENNIUM" it says
Thus oblivion can come from explosive shells, laser blasts, jets of super-heated flame or Psionic Beams. This section covers some of the most common (or notorious) weapons and serves as both a reference and example for some of the tools of death you will encounter.
As for the Haywire Grenades point, that is also wrong. Grenades are Weapons to...
When a unit armed with Haywire Grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Indicating by the use of the word 'another' that the Grenade is a shooting weapon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
So you address my whole post above by picking out the 1 bit I didn't fully quote the book?
What about the other points around it?

Plus the judge would have shouted down "OVERRULED!" after you said objection cos I have a valid point... or at least asked where I was leading with my questioning or reading of the texts... what I did :p. Though the nonsense about the Vulcan Mega Bolter stuff would have to be stricken from the record... :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
Then instead of prevaricating address my points rather than blindly ignoring my points.

I have already addressed the quote about witchfire powers - they are similar to weapons. But they are explicitly not weapons. They are however a shooting attack with a weaponlike profile.

Ignores cover requires mention of weapon. Shooting attack is not weapon.

In regards to weapons, they are specified in the BRB or the relevant codex entries as such. I am looking at a 7th edition codex right now which lists Melee weapons, ranged weapons etc.

Where in the rules does it say that Models Owned by vaz can choose 10 models each turn and just remove them from the field? Nowhere. I cannot do that. That is a permissive ruleset and the concept of warhammer and pretty much any game - you can do anything the rules say you can. If they don't, then you cannot do them. There is no rule anywhere outside of fluff which includes the rules for counting psychic powers as weapons, which is what Ignores Covers requires.

Weapons have profile. So do some witchfire powers, which have a profile like a weapon. Doesn't make them a weapon. A shooting attack can be made with a weapon or a psychic power. Doesn't make it a weapon.

A jumper can be made from sheeps wool or cotton. Doesn't make cotton an sheep. They are two distinct things in the RAW parlance.

Your continued insistence is seemingly based on the fallacious belief that GW know what the fuck they are writing. I have been playing this game and d&d CharOp long enough to know that immensely complicated systems like this has lots of disconnect, double turns, self contradictory rules etc that is doesn't make sense. Ie the most important rule wouldn't eed to be there otherwise.

I do not disagree that RACSD/RAI that the powers should have Ignores Cover, or other similar fuckups in the nomenclature, simply because of the disconnect. HOWEVER, by choosing to go as deep into self contradictory RAW as you have done, We have become aware of the error in the rules because of some idiot putting 'weapon' rather than simply stating that covers saves may not be taken against glance/pens/wounds with this special rule.

Everyone knows that ignores cover means exactly that, and that precendent is set with other powers with ignores cover , which simply highlights that GW don't know what they're writing.

So, to reiterate,

RAW- unless a weapon as listed explicitly (rather than obliquely) it does not benefit from Ignores cover, even if the profile attached to the nonweapon attack (such as witchfire powers which similar to, but not, weapons) has that rule.
RACSD - if it has IC rule, don't take cover saves against such wounds/glances etc.
RAI- likely see RACSD.

Raw and Common sense are not on speaking terms and do not stand up to this in depth scrutiny. Get with the program, and don't lose your shit when you're wrong.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I don't admit that I am wrong. But as you said there are clear contradictions in GWs wording of the rules. I have said before that I am sure that they must explain the rules they want to someone else in another country, who writes them out in chinese or indian or whatever and uses google translate to put them back to English.
It would be strange to see a BRB in Polish for instance and see if the problems with the FOC and Faction appear in there, or if the language difference eliminated the repeating of the same word to mean several different things.

So yeah RAW puts a few cases that Witchfire has no mention of being a weapon. There are also a few that say it is. But I also think people will happily stretch the English language to make any rule they like or dislike in the image they wish it to be if opennings are presented.
Though GW took they laziness award with a lot of the 'Forging a narrative' stuff being the cop out for any rule they didn't have time to get people to review and clarify.
Then again I have been playing games for about 30years or so and i think i am yet to see a core rulebook without some ambiguity in there. Much of which could be cleared up with 1-2 lines of text.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top