fortune/doom into assault?

Debate all the finer points of our fine hobby, or just 4, 5 or 6 it...

Can I do it?

Yes
13
87%
No
2
13%
 
Total votes : 15

Postby the_obeast » Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:13 pm

I got that part, but I was wondering who the redshirt is in this case...

A side note as well, it is ALMOST like shooting, the Farseer might accidentally Fortune enemy models if they are locked in a swirling melee, because it is like a bullet, who knows who it is going to hit?


Actually, after reading the codex, the farseer looks into the future and tells the squad what to do to not get killed, seeing as he is less than 6" away from them:)
So he is not "shoooting" them with a "magic bullet" of sorts, he is talking to them.
I don't think there are rules prohibiting talking in CC. :P

I've already pointed out that they used the word nominate, not target. I think that considering a nomination to be targetting a unit is a stretch. They use the word Target in doom, so they are saying that Nominate is not the same as Target:
Fortune:The Farseer scries the strands of the future to forsee where the enemy will attack, warning his fellow Eldar so that they may avoid enemy fire. Nominate one eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer. This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the start of the next Eldar turn.

Doom:The Farseer searches the thread of destiny that spells the destruction of an enemy and draws it into being. The Farseer can target any non-vehicle unit within 24".
Last edited by the_obeast on Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rofl.
the_obeast
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Milwaukee

Postby guyinthecorner » Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:24 pm

AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:Nominate and Target are almost the SAME thing, if you nominate a unit, you have made it the Target. And you cannot target units locked in assault.


A valid point. Let's take a look at how likely that's true, however:

The RAW approach: If you're a RAW-purist, the argument ends here. Nominate is not target. They're different, and the rules don't mention any restrictions about nominating, so there aren't any.

But.... I think most people aren't RAW-purists. It can lead to some absurd results like terminators not wearing terminator armor, so let's keep going.

It's true that nominate and target are sort of the same. It's also true that the harlequin's veil of tears is sort of like nightfight. Does that mean they're the same? No.

Secondly, GW tells you specifically not to disregard departures from the shooting rules. At the top of the psychic powers listing GW says that the powers follow shooting rules "unless otherwise specified." They're telling you that there's going to be some changes from shooting, so pay attention and be on the lookout for them. This explicit note is all the more reason not to write-off the distinction.

Lastly, as has been noted, GW used the word "target" elsewhere. They know what words to use, if they meant them to be there, they would be there. But they're not.

Basically, if you're a person who says "RAW is RAW and RAW's the standard," this question probably wouldn't have ever entered your head. If you're the kind of person who will read a little past RAW, you should have trouble getting around the fact that GW, in a section where they're telling you there's going to be departures from the shooting rules, did in fact choose a wording that departs from the shooting rules!

Either way you cut it the result comes out the same, Fortune and Guide can most definitely be cast upon units in CC.
guyinthecorner
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:16 am

Postby n00bzilla99 » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:43 am

I still think that the answer is no, if he is locked a swirling melee, then how does he have the time to stop fighting and look into the future without getting his head lopped off?
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby guyinthecorner » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:46 am

AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:I still think that the answer is no, if he is locked a swirling melee, then how does he have the time to stop fighting and look into the future without getting his head lopped off?


Hey, house-rule it however you want. Personal opinion and interpretations based on perceived notions of how things "would really work" (c'mon, doesn't that sound sorta silly?) are virtually useless, however, when interpreting what the rules actually say.
guyinthecorner
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:16 am

Postby the_obeast » Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:04 am

how does he have the time to stop fighting and look into the future without getting his head lopped off?


he multi-tasks!!! :D
By that logic, why does a Hellhound just die quietly- all that fire would most ceritainly cause a massive fireball that would not be the wimpy 4+ wound crap... it would be a S6 AP4 blast, due to it being all the prometium exploding at once.

Why does a Necron Res-Orb let vaporised warriors get back up? According to common sense that is not possible, so it shouldn't work, but it does......

So how is this any different?
so yeah, some things don't make sense, but in the end the rules are more important that what WOULD happen
edit: I'm gonna call GW and ask soon...
rofl.
the_obeast
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Milwaukee

Postby Crumpsky » Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:17 pm

I still think that the answer is no, if he is locked a swirling melee, then how does he have the time to stop fighting and look into the future without getting his head lopped off?


I think the question was can a farseer out of assualt fortune a unit in assualt?

So Joe he wouldnt stop fighting because he wouldnt be in combat.
Crumpsky
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:02 pm
Location: DG

Postby the_obeast » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:12 pm

i mean both cases.
rofl.
the_obeast
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Milwaukee

Postby n00bzilla99 » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:18 pm

i'll house rule it like so, until i get an official word from Games Workshop as to what is implied by their meaning.

it is totally unthinkable that the farseer could have ANY concentration in close combat to do something like that.

theo, to answer your question about the hellhound, not all hits that "destroy" the tank hit the promethium tanks, just the ones that cause an explosion, sometimes you just kill the drivers, crippling the vehicle for good.

if he wasnt in combat i still say that the nominate/target thing isn't clear enough for me to rule in any way.

nobody can multitask like that without dieing of stress.

the res orb emits a "energy field" persay that makes the orndance not as powerful in fluff sense, in game sense no strength subtraction happens, but on the table it is if the model simply explodes instead of melting, he will then get back up.

i won't mention anyhting about the redshirts, beucase i would lose, and since you did mention calling the shirts, i think its a draw. (Redbeard's law)
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby 00Enron » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:30 pm

I would suggest you re-think calling GW your answer might be totally different depending on who you talk to. Ask 10 GW employees you might get 12 different answers.
00Enron
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:37 am

Postby Carrick » Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:20 am

00Enron wrote:I would suggest you re-think calling GW your answer might be totally different depending on who you talk to. Ask 10 GW employees you might get 12 different answers.


Or save yourself some time and ask five for six. :lol:
Adepticon '08 - Sixth Worst 40k Sportsman.
Adepticon '09 - Ninth Worst 40k Sportsman.
User avatar
Carrick
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:28 am
Location: Ravenswood, Chicago

Postby guyinthecorner » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:18 am

AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:it is totally unthinkable that the farseer could have ANY concentration in close combat to do something like that.


Lots of things are totally unthinkable. It's a game with orks and avatars and lascannons. C'mon.

I'm perfectly willing to dice-off legitimate rules confusions, but an interpretation based on "it can't work that way" just isn't going to cut it.
If such an argument were legitimate, most every rule in the game could be called into question.
guyinthecorner
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:16 am

Postby n00bzilla99 » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:32 am

I understand that most of the content of this game is "Unthinkable"

but I still do not believe that it is legal to forture into an assault.
Neither do I believe he can do it IN close combat.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby guyinthecorner » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:59 am

I do not believe you should be able to deploy. Therefore if we ever play, I'll expect a dice-off to see if I auto-win.

This is by your own reasoning so I'm sure you'll accept its validity.

Sounds absurd? Yep.
guyinthecorner
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:16 am

Postby Redbeard » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:47 am

AdeptusBrewCityJoe - you're past being unreasonable. Just cause you don't get it doesn't make it so. There isn't a single rule in any codex or the main rulebook, that would back up your idea that the Farseer can't do this. You've resorted to making up rules based on "the farseer is too busy to talk to his comrades in an assault."

Try to see the absurd lengths you are going to in order to defend your erronious position, and admit that you were initially wrong. There's no reason to drag this out.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby n00bzilla99 » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:04 pm

guyinthecorner, if you are going to be like that, I don't think its legal for you to play, following what you think is my logic.

You have got to be kidding redbeard.

Where I did make up a rule that it was illegal because I cannot imagine it happening?

I simply said that in my mind, while a swirling melee is going on, it is unreasonable to think that he could, so simply put, if the game were live action I don't think he would do it, but thats not saying, "Its a rule because I can't imagine it happening" not, gtfo, that is garbage, that is not what i said.

I will not admit i was wrong, especially after the great amount of flame thrown in my direction by you and guyinthecorner.

There is nothing that says you can, nor is there anything that IMPLIES that he can target into closecombat.

Guyinthecorner, your logic is scariest of all, because that is not what I am implying, I did not say that "he can't do it because I do not believe so" I am implying that if he was allowed to do it, I would't see why.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Rules Discussions (40K)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron