Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: This will be relevant: condemner boltguns.

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,483
    Its like, can you look out sir on plasma overheats or demon weapons? No, because it is a wound that specifically hurts one model. No other model can suffer perils of the warp, only Psykers are affected by this rule and, despite obscure wording, anyone who tries to argue otherwise is just being an ass.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by ace423 View Post
    Its like, can you look out sir on plasma overheats or demon weapons? No, because it is a wound that specifically hurts one model. No other model can suffer perils of the warp, only Psykers are affected by this rule and, despite obscure wording, anyone who tries to argue otherwise is just being an ass.
    Neither of those wounds are caused by a successful hit from a shooting or melee attack, so Look Out Sir wouldn't apply. The Perils wound that takes place from the Condemner is a direct result of a successful hit from a shooting attack, against which I am allowed to take Look Out Sir. The fact that it auto-wounds on hit in addition to a regular wound you need to resolve is, to me, irrelevant. Look Out Sir doesn't say I only get to take it against non-auto wounds.

    If I remember correctly, the Perils wording says I take a wound with no saves of any kind allowed. I don't believe it says I take an unsaved wound. That's an important disctinction. Taking a wound with no saves allowed is on the "other side" of the wound resolution process from an unsaved wound. On the one hand, I have a wound I have not yet resolved but denies me a save, and on the other hand I have a wound that I have already failed to save for whatever reason. If I have a 3+ armor save, no invul or cover save, and take an AP2 wound, I'm also not allowed to take a save of any kind. I can still Look Out Sir that wound after it is assigned but before it is resolved even though I am denied a save.

    I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight one way or the other as none of my Psykers will ever be joined to a unit, at least until the new 'Nid codex comes out with any potential changes that may happen there. Right now, I take a hit, I eat a wound I have no way to save. It's lame, stupid BS, but it's pretty clear from a rules point of view. I can definitely see a situation for other players using librarians for farseers where it would be nowhere near as cut and dry.
    Last edited by kjolnir; 11-07-2013 at 11:18 AM.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Caldera02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Well it's hard enough, as is, to get the condemer bolt to actually hit a psyker buried in a squad. Until further notice, we will play it as I described. I don't want this silly rule having people running around gaking everyone's psykers but I also don't want it to be useless. I believe my interpretation of it is fair and logical.
    Wargamescon 40k Judge
    caldera40k.blogspot.com
    Hogleg - "only in my head someone bought CRP's OOP Wraithlord then stuck its toe in cover."

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,483
    It's really only relevant to psykers on their own or in a squad of psykers. Which I am cool with.

    (Also: didn't read)

  5. #55
    Senior Member Caldera02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Well psykers on their own just get hosed lol
    Wargamescon 40k Judge
    caldera40k.blogspot.com
    Hogleg - "only in my head someone bought CRP's OOP Wraithlord then stuck its toe in cover."

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldera02 View Post
    Well it's hard enough, as is, to get the condemer bolt to actually hit a psyker buried in a squad. Until further notice, we will play it as I described. I don't want this silly rule having people running around gaking everyone's psykers but I also don't want it to be useless. I believe my interpretation of it is fair and logical.
    It's definitely reasonable, and fair. I think logically it doesn't necessarily pan out, but that's not your fault, either. If we applied the rule logically, the Condemner wouldn't be much more dangerous than a regular shooting attack. I don't believe that's the intent of the weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by ace423 View Post
    It's really only relevant to psykers on their own or in a squad of psykers. Which I am cool with.

    (Also: didn't read)
    What a valuable contribution.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by kjolnir View Post
    What a valuable contribution.
    I do my best to help this community. Glad you appreciate.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by ace423 View Post
    I do my best to help this community.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8yRXqpQhRg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •