HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Holes in the list.

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
AuthorMessage
Dark Elf Dave
Wych
avatar

Posts : 508
Join date : 2017-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 11:35

Are you saying that the Ossefactor can keep rolling for additional mortal wounds for each successful 4+? Because I didn't believe that to be the case.
Back to top Go down
Lord Johan
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2016-07-21
Location : Coming to a realspace near you

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 11:40

There is a thread arguing about it in rules section, now locked. It does not say it cannot generate additional mortal wounds. The issue is whether special rules apply to mortal wounds caused by special rules. While its a reasonable interpretation especially since the ossefactor is a bad weapon for its cost otherwise, can't count on your opp. allowing this when it can demonstrably cause fierce arguments.
Back to top Go down
Dark Elf Dave
Wych
avatar

Posts : 508
Join date : 2017-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 12:02

For me there is little chance that for 13pts you can continue to cause mortal wounds on successive rolls of 4+

But that is just my opinion.

I would hope that when we do get our codex that they make some amendments to the points cost of weapons such as Heat Lances, Splinter Cannons, Ossefactor and Liquifier Guns. I think that the latter 3 of those would be good choices at 10pts each.
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3255
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 12:04

IDR what one, but another army had the same wording on a weapon and it was faq to one be the 1 wound, cant generate more mortal wounds from mortal wounds deaths.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Lord Johan
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2016-07-21
Location : Coming to a realspace near you

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 12:26

It is really not that great even read that way.
For your 13 points on an already expensive troops choice you kill 1 marine 46% of the time. Then if you do, which is less than half of the time, if you can cause at most 1 mw you kill 1 extra marine 50% of the time. If you can do successive mw then you kill 2 marines 25% of the time, 3 marines 12.5%, 4 6.25%... so putting it all together vs a 5 man marine squad you will kill 0.89 marines on average (i had the armor save multiplier wrong above when i posted in reply to Mppqmld, this is from wolfram alpha: 2/3*5/6*5/6+2/3*5/6*5/6*sum(1/2^n),n=1 to 4 so you can check the work). Reading it as 1 wound max you would do 2/3*5/6*5/6 + 2/3*5/6*5/6*1/2 for 0.69 marines killed on average. So the multiple mw thing kills 1 extra marine per 5 ossefactor shots average. And only if you read the rule that way is it better than a liquifier that has the same price and it is even still worse vs guardsmen where it would kill approx 1.1 geq(vs 10 geq squad 2/3*5/6+2/3*5/6*sum(1/2^n),n=1 to 10). And if it can't cause successive mw it's only slightly (1 more marine killed per 7 shots) better than a 15p blaster vs 1 wound infantry but worse vs multiple wounds and with zero anti-armor utility so is that really a 13p gun that you can only take 1 of.

E: a blaster vs a marine is 0.56 wounds so single mw ossefactors will kill about 1 extra marine per 7 squads rounding in favor of ossies you fire compared to if they were blasters. Which are of course more easily available, far more versatile, and cheaper if you account for the squad. Doing math while travelling, my bad.
Back to top Go down
Jimsolo
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3071
Join date : 2013-10-31
Location : Illinois

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 14:05

It's possible the Ossefactor might be FAQ'd, but as it's written I can't see any reasonable way to interpret its rules that doesn't let the wounds explode.
Back to top Go down
Dark Elf Dave
Wych
avatar

Posts : 508
Join date : 2017-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 14:56

My first instinct was that you do not get continuous mortal wounds and I 100% expect this to get FAQ'd as you mentioned. I would not allow players to use it that way and I would not use it myself that way.

You only have to read the description of the weapon to understand why it may cause an additional mortal wound but only one.

"One blast from the weapon sees the victim undergo uncontrollable bone growth, with their skeleton suddenly sprouting spurs and spears that slay them instantly – and may even impale their brothers-in-arms"

This would suggest the mortal wound is caused by the death of a nearby victim and not caused directly by the Ossefactor although of course it played its part. If you consider the way the rules might be intended to follow the fluff then I think one mortal wound is your lot.
Back to top Go down
Lord Johan
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2016-07-21
Location : Coming to a realspace near you

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 15:15

So the main argument to why it would "explode" is nothing to do with fluff. It's RAW "if a model is slain by this weapon, ..."

And those who argue that the wounds should explode see it killing a model with a mortal wound. It makes sense: if it kills a model and then you roll a mortal wound and it kills another, and then I ask, how many models were slain by this weapon? I think you will say "two" rather than "one" if you just abandon the fluff. So by that logic you then roll again and ask the same question and now you answer three models were slain by this weapon - so the trigger as written in the rule happened again, right?

But you could also argue by its wording that it can only happen once, because it reads "if a model is slain..." and not "whenever a model is slain" or "for each model that is slain" which to me at least seems to imply singularity, a yes or no,.as if it read more exactly: "was at least one model slain by this weapon? Then the unit takes a mortal wound on 4+."

E: like imagine it's an algorithm for if it does mortal wounds. Does the algorithm have many steps where you check? If it reads
1. Shoot at target 2. Check for dead models 3. If there are dead models allocate a mortal wound
then it ends there.
If it reads
1. Shoot at target 2. Check for dead models 3. If there are dead models allocate mortal wounds 4. Go to step 2
Then it can explode. And maybe it's those programming classes i took but to me "if" sounds like 1 and "when(ever)" sounds like 2.

Fwiw I'm personally in the single mw camp but the language is not exact enough to rule what they meant. The majority opinion seems to be pro explosion.

Anyway this discussion got 1 thread locked when it got acrimonious. Should probably mail GW and ask if it works that way, and if not, then what is the point of this weapon and why isn't it 5pts or so.
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3255
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 16:02

Im not saying it doesnt work like that for RAW, im saying it was not GW intent for it to work that way, there has been a faq (i guess i'll look for it now) on another wapon that was very similar and they said it doesnt confer another wound.

Even tho it wasnt for us, knowing it will be faq to only work once, im just going to play it like that for now and just get used to it working only once.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Archon_91
Wych
avatar

Posts : 521
Join date : 2017-01-03

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 16:04

We seem to have a need to explode GW's inbox with awkward wording questions, usefulness questions and points suggestions. Something will happen if most of the forum does this ... As it didn't take much for them to do something about Razorwing flocks ...
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3255
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Wed Aug 30 2017, 16:34

I've told them about it after the last faq's didnt say anything. They might just be waiting for codex release now.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1305
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 02:19

They may intend for mortal wounds to be inherently source-less automatic damage with an associated source-based trigger.

I don't think that breaks anything else, but resolves this to the contrary.
Back to top Go down
Lord Johan
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2016-07-21
Location : Coming to a realspace near you

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 06:27

If mortal wounds are sourceless then that breaks a lot of things. For example: if you kill something with the psychic power Smite, is this a unit destroyed by your unit for purposes of objectives etc. or equivalent to the target dying to battlescape terrain? Objective 66 states your warlord specifically must slay the target (when applicable), so if he smites the target and the target dies, did he kill the target? I think most people would protest the interpretation that he didn't because it was a mortal wound.

It's more likely they just didn't think some people would interpret it this way, that the rule could trigger several times instead of just once. Because I think most people on the forum didn't either but one person read it this way to begin with and then it caught on. I don't think it's in any way plain from the rule that you get to check for dead models again and trigger it again after the rule has been resolved once (see algorithm example above) so it's very possible GW just didn't think of it just like with some other things.
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1041
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 08:46

@amishprn86 wrote:
Im not saying it doesnt work like that for RAW, im saying it was not GW intent for it to work that way, there has been a faq (i guess i'll look for it now) on another wapon that was very similar and they said it doesnt confer another wound.

Even tho it wasnt for us, knowing it will be faq to only work once, im just going to play it like that for now and just get used to it working only once.

Which is partly the problem. A lot of weapons have a similar rule, but they are written differently, which is either just silly or there is a reason to write it differently: they are not supposed to have the same effect.
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3255
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 08:59

@|Meavar wrote:
@amishprn86 wrote:
Im not saying it doesnt work like that for RAW, im saying it was not GW intent for it to work that way, there has been a faq (i guess i'll look for it now) on another wapon that was very similar and they said it doesnt confer another wound.

Even tho it wasnt for us, knowing it will be faq to only work once, im just going to play it like that for now and just get used to it working only once.

Which is partly the problem. A lot of weapons have a similar rule, but they are written differently, which is either just silly or there is a reason to write it differently: they are not supposed to have the same effect.

They had different writers, also when your writing 600 rules within a year and 14 armies worth of stats, you will be inconsistent for sure.

As someone that ran a business for a while, wrote 2 hand books and curriculum, (which i'd say is about 1/5 of the index's amount of materials) its surprising how easy it is to miss things like that.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Lord Johan
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2016-07-21
Location : Coming to a realspace near you

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 09:29

What other weapons have similar rules? Out of interest. And yeah I will also second out of experience that it requires very close attention and sometimes outside feedback to be consistent in large volumes of text even where it's absolutely necessary like in research so it's not really surprising game writers aren't
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3255
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 15:56

Will have to go through the rules, when i get home i'll try to do that. I remember it clearly tho b.c it was brought up at my local and we all had a discussion about it.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Ikol
Wych
avatar

Posts : 564
Join date : 2017-03-20
Location : Perth

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 22:44

As a physicist helping a colleague with their Phd, I can confirm that consistency is both key and extremely difficult to attain.

The best approach is to write the thing, write up a best practices list and then rewrite the thing, adhering to the best practices list.

I'm not certain our buddies at GeeDubs did that last thing.

_________________
This world exists because of the things we have done, forever branching to the decisions we make and twisting to what we do not.

”Woe to our enemies.  We'll tear them apart regardless.” ~Barrywise
Back to top Go down
LordSplata
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 281
Join date : 2017-06-14
Location : Sydney

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Thu Aug 31 2017, 23:49

Have to say though, that while not perfect this is by far the most consistent they have been with a series of books. The amount of special rules that have exactly the same wording is very impressive.

It sounds like a ridiculously easy thing to do, just use the same wording but as Ikol is saying it can be supremely difficult to get right; so my hat goes off to them

Thanks for the mathhammer Johan, very enlightening. Especially how with a 5 man squad you don't approach the limit of 1 for the ossefactor. I was just assuming we would!

Still no anti hoard solution in our army such a massive gapping hole.
Back to top Go down
Dark Elf Dave
Wych
avatar

Posts : 508
Join date : 2017-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Fri Sep 01 2017, 09:23

Yep I guess anti-horde weapon has still got to be the Liquifier Gun only...we do have access to lots a rapid fire though don't we.

Anti-horde would be nice wouldn't it, but do you think sometimes that it is quite fluffy to think of DE having problems with a horde army?
Back to top Go down
Ikol
Wych
avatar

Posts : 564
Join date : 2017-03-20
Location : Perth

PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   Fri Sep 01 2017, 16:13

No. Not fluffy.

We should pass through low quality, high quantity peons like a Klaive through warm butter. They are cattle, they are prey and they should flee before us in terror.

_________________
This world exists because of the things we have done, forever branching to the decisions we make and twisting to what we do not.

”Woe to our enemies.  We'll tear them apart regardless.” ~Barrywise
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Holes in the list.   

Back to top Go down
 
Holes in the list.
Back to top 
Page 5 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

GENERAL DRUKHARI DISCUSSION

 :: Drukhari Discussion
-
Jump to: