Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Swot

Black Crusade Errata?

Recommended Posts

H.B.M.C. said:

 

vogue69 said:

Whirlwind of Death hasn't been corrected. Table says: Can make an attack against anyone in melee, description then talks about making more horde damage.

 

Crushing Blow etc. hasn't been errataed. Half WS or Full WS?

Dual Wield: 1/2 action for 2 Lightning Attacks?

I am sure there are tons of other uncorrected mistakes.

 



What needs to be clarified with Crushing Blow exactly? Black Crusade, Page 117, Table 4-3: "Add half WS bonus to Damage inflicted in melee". And then on page 121: "The character adds half his Weapon Skill Bonus to Damage he inflicts in melee". What's ambiguous about that? What am I missing?

As for Lightning Attacks, Black Crusade, Page 132: "If a character is fighting with a weapon in either hand or benefits from a Talent or Power which allows him to make more than one attack in his turn only one of his attacks may be a Lightning Attack and have the chance of scoring additional hits.". So it doesn't matter whether it's a 1/2 or Full Action to make 2 Lightning Attacks because you can't make two Lightning Attacks in a turn away.

Can't speak for the Whirlwind of Death one. The summary and description are at odds with one another.

BYE

 

 

 

 

ah sorry I confused Crushing Blow with Streetfighting.

As for the lightning attack one: what about Swiftattack? or is it ment like this: ...his turn only one of his attacks may have the chance of scoring additional hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ItsUncertainWho said:

That is not what is stated in the errata. I see no problems with the wording.

When someone makes an attack with a delay action, their target may dodge or parry that attack as normal. This has nothing to do with reactions on your turn. The attack is happening as if it is the attackers turn, regardless of who the target is or who's turn it is.



That's quite a leap.

A delay action is used when it's not your turn. That means it happens during someone else's turn. If it is happening during my turn, and I am the target of the attack, I cannot dodge, because it is my turn and you cannot use reactions during your own turn.

Break No Rule.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

Break No Rule.

Any example which involves characters or NPC's using Reactions during their own turn breaks the rules for Reactions. Therefore, you cannot use a reaction to avoid an attack made by someone using a Delay to attack you during your own turn. This is no different to when someone uses their reaction in your turn to punch you with a Servo-Arm. It's your turn, and you cannot use reactions in your own turn, only when it is not your turn.

And, again, the errata says "as normal", and given that the normal rules don't allow you to use reactions in your own turn, you cannot Dodge/Parry attacks made via Delay in your own turn when the attack targets you specifically.

BYE

This is not true. There are several instances when you can use Reaction during your own turn 

eg 1 Furious assault: "If the character successfully hits target using All Out Attack Action, he may spend his Reaction (and thus not being able to parry or dodge until his next turn) to make an additional attack..."

eg 2 Servo arm - the Heretic may strike with it as his Reaction for the round or use it to make a Standard attack - I understand this in the same way as furious assault, he may spend reaction to gain additional attack this round, foregoing his reaction until the start of his next turn. 

eg 3 Ballistic mechadendrite// MIU weapon interface - The heretic may attack with this weapon as his Reaction. - Same thing here. 

Do you think players can use those weapons only in someone else's turn? This makes no sense to me. Why would they be able to? There are only specific actions which allow it, and I don't thin these are the instance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

 

Firstly, to point 1), yes, that's exactly what I said in eg 2. To repeat myself, in that example the person using Delay in my turn targets someone else. As it is my turn and not theirs, they can Dodge/Parry as normal.

This is no different to when someone uses their reaction in your turn to punch you with a Servo-Arm. It's your turn, and you cannot use reactions in your own turn, only when it is not your turn.

And, again, the errata says "as normal", and given that the normal rules don't allow you to use reactions in your own turn, you cannot Dodge/Parry attacks made via Delay in your own turn when the attack targets you specifically.

Look I'm not saying that it should be this way, only that it is this way. And also hate the Counter-Attack/Parry problem, where they attack you, you parry, then counter attack and they can't block your attack because it's their turn. It's horrendous in Deathwatch because unless you count the "always fail on a natural 100 thing" you can basically boost your stats and bonuses to a point where you auto-parry and then auto-hit, meaning no one can touch you. This game - all the games - need fail conditions that match the Jamming rules for ranged attacks. 96+ should be an auto-miss with Melee (with a chance to hit yourself for reduced damage, ie. a melee equivalent to Jamming). Parry and Dodge need these as well, with 96+ for Parry = drop your weapon and 96+ for Dodge = you fall over/go prone unintentionally. Then you throw in further equivalences to the Jamming rules, so like with Semi-/Full-Auto/Suppressing Fire Jamming on 94+, so two would Swift/Lightning/All-Out Attack. Unbalanced weapons would fail their parries on a 94+. And so on. Put those in, and a lot of problems with the combat rules in this game start to go away.

I understood your examples, I am just not sure that is what the errata intended (unless you wrote it?). There has never been any question if someone in situation 2 could dodge. Of course they could. There was no conflict with the rules on Reactions. The only question was whether it was really intended that someone with higher Initiative could Delay and then get an unavoidable attack. For a Half-Action you could essentially get the equivalent of an automatically successful feint (which could also be done with ranged weapons). The fact that the phrasing of the errata is acting as if it is a clarification suggests (to me at least) that it is addressing the events of your first example, and actually saying you can dodge or parry. Example 2 needed no clarification (and is also incredibly unlikely... why would you wait to shoot a 3rd person in another person's turn? Either shoot them in your own turn, if you can already see them, or in their turn, when they bring themselves into your line of sight. Not saying it is against the rules... just that there is little point to it).

 

Unless the FAQ team just really didn't understand the question.

Oh, while I agree the Counter-Attack problem (which I think is partially solved by reinstating the +/-30 limit), as far as I am aware all attacks automatically miss on a 96-100 (pre-Black Crusade). Yes, you can easily get to an auto-parry, there is never an auto-hit on an attack. Now, I know it isn't very well explained, but that is how I always read the whole text from the "Jamming" text talking about "as well as being an automatic miss."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

That's quite a leap.


A delay action is used when it's not your turn. That means it happens during someone else's turn. If it is happening during my turn, and I am the target of the attack, I cannot dodge, because it is my turn and you cannot use reactions during your own turn.

Break No Rule.

BYE

 

No offense, but I don't see this as a leap of any sort. It is a simple reading of the text and the most logical conclusion. You seem to be wanting it to be way more complicated than it is. This is the way I and everyone I know who owns any 40K rpg's have read and used Delay since we first cracked open Dark Heresy.

You delay. An enemy moves, making themselves a nice big target. Before he finishes his turn, I act on my delayed action by shooting, thus continuing my turn and allowing my target to dodge. The target dodges, my turn ends, his continues.  

Keep It Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

Oh I know it's under Swift Attack. I don't know why it's under Swift Attack, but it is there. It's a weird rule and an easy one to miss, but there it is, in black and white.

BYE



"If a character with the Two-Weapon Wielder (Melee) Talent is armed with two melee weapons, he may perform a melee Attack Action (either a Standard Attack, Swift Attack, or Lightning Attack) with one of these weapons. He may then perform a melee Attack Action (either a Standard Attack, Swift Attack, or Lightning Attack) with the other weapon, with any applicable modifiers to the Test. This attack may be against any target in melee." -Black Crusade, pg 244

Contradiction. Also, honestly, I'd take the above section over a rule for one talent posted under the description for ANOTHER talent. Because that seems a lot like an editing artifact to me, rather than the writers somehow decided that the rules for Lightning attack that clashed with the big two weapon section needed to be placed under Swift Attack. But, honestly, that's preference and I ain't gonna pretend it ain't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swift Attack (page 132): Replace the section beginning
with “The character’s speed with weapons is legendary...” and
ending with “...Melee weapons with the Unwieldy Special Quality
cannot be used to make Lightning Attacks.”

If you look this includes the entire description of the talent so it replaces the part in question here. So it is now clear you can do two(+?) lightning attacks with two(+?) weapons.

The only thing still unclear about this part is whether it is one half action to use multiple weapons or not since the two weapon weilder talent and two weapon fighting rule description sounds like two half actions for two weapons, while the swift attack and lightning attack actions sound like only one half action to use two weapons. Not to mention how multiple limbs might work here. (This was a non issue in the other systems since before they had the 'Multiple Attack' action which was a full action to attack more than once wether it was swift/lightning attack or with all your armed limbs or both. And a full action to do semi/full auto as well.)

(I have asked and will post the answer.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ItsUncertainWho said:

No offense, but I don't see this as a leap of any sort. It is a simple reading of the text and the most logical conclusion. You seem to be wanting it to be way more complicated than it is. This is the way I and everyone I know who owns any 40K rpg's have read and used Delay since we first cracked open Dark Heresy.

You delay. An enemy moves, making themselves a nice big target. Before he finishes his turn, I act on my delayed action by shooting, thus continuing my turn and allowing my target to dodge. The target dodges, my turn ends, his continues.  

Keep It Simple.



Keeping it simple would be following the standard rules of the game, those being the rules that forbid you from using Reactions on your own turn.

You're going to have to show where it says that Delay stops their turn, restarts your own, then restarts theirs afterwards.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ItsUncertainWho has what is logically the most likely interpretation. That part of the question and answer are pointless otherwise (and it also stops Delay becoming a stupidly powerful combat option, when it clearly was never intended to be so). There was never any question if a person being attacked with a delayed action could dodge if it wasn't their turn. The question was clearly not aimed at that issue, but at the issue of "If I am attacked with a Delay in my turn can I dodge?" That was the only place where there was ever any confusion, as a strict reading of the rules would suggest not, but it wasn't clear if that was ever the intention of the action. It made Delay into something much more significant than it ever seems it should have been, especially if you consider Feint. One would basically cost a half action to possibly bypass defences, while the other costs a half action to automatically bypass defences, the only caveat being that you have to choose to use your half action in their turn rather than anyone else's. It would also make gaining Initiative horribly powerful (rather than just a minor advantage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaining Initiative is a 'minor' advantage?

And logical or not, he has to show where the rules say that. Clarifying ambiguous rules is one thing, but there's nothing ambiguous about not being allowed to use reactions in your own turn.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it is a minor advantage. Well, unless you can use the fact you're going first to do something very important. In terms of attacking someone, unless you inflict enough damage that the opponent is either dead or seriously hampered (by Criticals or similar, for example), they are still going to get to shoot back at you. Ok, it might mean the difference between having cover and not having cover against a particular opponent's attack, which would be more important. Also, as you are earlier in the turn order so your targets are much more likely to have their Reactions remaining against your attacks. It would be this kind of thing Delay would be for: "****, I have a lascannon and I am first in the turn order... they'll probably just dodge my one shot" "OK, you delay, we will attack them to burn through their Reactions, and then you shoot at them". Ok, if they choose to keep their reactions for the upcoming lascannon shot, it doesn't do that very good, but then everyone else gets to attack them without having to deal with as many Reactions (essentially the targets looking over their shoulder at the guy with the big gun, meaning they don't devote their full attention to the other people shooting/trying to hit them).

The thing I keep saying about the FAQ though is that if it is meant to clarify something it only makes sense as clarifying using a Delay in your Target's turn.

In your second example (During A Delays, and then during B's turn A shoots at C) there never was any ambiguity (aside from whether you needed another half action available to use or not, and that is now clarified as well). C could always Dodge or Parry. It is not something that ever needed FAQing or Errataing. Also, as I said, it would be a rare occurance anyway. Delay is much more likely to be used to act during the turn of the person you are targeting.

The only ambiguity (or at least the apparent RAW seemed unreasonable) was if A Delays, then during B's turn shot at B. The RAW, as you say, seems to suggest that B cannot Dodge. However, there was always a question mark over this, as it seems to make Delay too powerful, especially, as I said earlier, if you look at Feint in comparison. It may have essentially been the intention that Delay essentially creates a sort of "mini" turn for the person using their Delayed Half Action, so it isn't the target's turn again and they can Dodge. It may have been a simple oversight (this is a collaboration between GW and FFG, two companies famed for the fact that their rules are never 100% foolproof, at least the first time). Or it may have actually been intended the way that you interpret it(and strict, unclarified RAWwould suggest), but on the balance of evidence I would not personally support that (and if it turned out that way, something I would certainly house rule).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that it doesn't make Delay too powerful, it certainly does do that (imagine 5 players fighting one big boss and all delaying until it's the boss' turn... now he can't avoid anything!), but it's also what the rules are.

I'm not arguing whether it should be that way, only stating that it is that way, for good or for ill (and in this case, I think ill).

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now actually sent a question to the Rules Questions team to see what they say:

The new FAQ has still left some wondering about the Delay action. Am I correct that if player A delays, and then interrupts player B's turn by attacking player B, player B can still dodge or parry, or is B not allowed to use a Reaction as it is their turn?

If the latter is the case, it doesn't seem to balance very well with the Feint action, which uses a Half-Action to possibly bypass someone's Reactions, while Delay would effectively allow someone to spend a Half-Action to automatically ignore a person's Reactions (as long as they used the Delayed Half-Action in their target's turn).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ItsUncertainWho said:

 

That is not what is stated in the errata. I see no problems with the wording.

When someone makes an attack with a delay action, their target may dodge or parry that attack as normal. This has nothing to do with reactions on your turn. The attack is happening as if it is the attackers turn, regardless of who the target is or who's turn it is.

 

 

I agree. I find the errata clear enough here, and I think trying to interpret the "as normal" to mean anything else is being willfully difficult :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

I agree. I find the errata clear enough here, and I think trying to interpret the "as normal" to mean anything else is being willfully difficult :)

Willfully difficult is putting it politely. 

Actively seeking to find a convoluted way to exploit something by making the choice to fail basic reading comprehension skills seems like a slightly more rude way to put it. lengua.gif 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. While I agree with your interpretation I think there is some ambiguity, if read on its own. However, I think the context does make it clear (ie, it is meant to be clarifying something, and as there was only one situation where there was ambiguity, it is almost certain that it is clarifying that situation, rather than something that never needed clarifying in the first place). "As normal" could be interpreted as "as according to the normal rules" rather than "as if it was a normal attack." I don't think it is the most likely one, but it is a possible interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

borithan said:

I have to disagree. While I agree with your interpretation I think there is some ambiguity, if read on its own. However, I think the context does make it clear (ie, it is meant to be clarifying something, and as there was only one situation where there was ambiguity, it is almost certain that it is clarifying that situation, rather than something that never needed clarifying in the first place). "As normal" could be interpreted as "as according to the normal rules" rather than "as if it was a normal attack." I don't think it is the most likely one, but it is a possible interpretation.

I never saw any problem or conflict due to the fact of what a delayed action is.

You are actively holding part of your turn to be used at a later point in the round. Once you decide to use your held action, you finish your turn. I don't understand how the basic function of the action gets lost in translation and turned into an exploit. To me, turning this into the "I'm using my held action, I am acting on someone elses turn, they don't get a reaction" false exploit takes way more effort to do and justify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

I agree. I find the errata clear enough here, and I think trying to interpret the "as normal" to mean anything else is being willfully difficult :)



Sorry. I don't see how following the rules is being 'wilfully difficult'. Why is interpreting 'as normal' to mean 'follow the rules' an incorrect solution?

BYE

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

borithan said:

I have now actually sent a question to the Rules Questions team to see what they say:

The new FAQ has still left some wondering about the Delay action. Am I correct that if player A delays, and then interrupts player B's turn by attacking player B, player B can still dodge or parry, or is B not allowed to use a Reaction as it is their turn?

If the latter is the case, it doesn't seem to balance very well with the Feint action, which uses a Half-Action to possibly bypass someone's Reactions, while Delay would effectively allow someone to spend a Half-Action to automatically ignore a person's Reactions (as long as they used the Delayed Half-Action in their target's turn).



I can tell you what the answer is going to be:

"Of course they can Dodge/Parry the attack!"

And the reason why is how you've phrased the question. It would have perhaps been better to word it like this:


"The rules for reactions state that they cannot be used in your own turn, only during someone else's turn. Delay allows other characters to take actions, including attack actions, during your turn. If a character uses a Delay to make an attack action during your turn, can you Dodge/Parry it given the usual restrictions for using Reactions in your own turn?" 

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signoftheserpent said:

So once again FFG fail to do their job properly.

I'm absolutely speechless. They don't respond, they don't listen, they don't care.

I'm done paying money to these clowns.



You clearly have some sort of axe to grind, especially given the last five of your posts have been essentially the same. Do you have a point to make, or just venting?

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

 

borithan said:

I have now actually sent a question to the Rules Questions team to see what they say:

 

The new FAQ has still left some wondering about the Delay action. Am I correct that if player A delays, and then interrupts player B's turn by attacking player B, player B can still dodge or parry, or is B not allowed to use a Reaction as it is their turn?

If the latter is the case, it doesn't seem to balance very well with the Feint action, which uses a Half-Action to possibly bypass someone's Reactions, while Delay would effectively allow someone to spend a Half-Action to automatically ignore a person's Reactions (as long as they used the Delayed Half-Action in their target's turn).



I can tell you what the answer is going to be:

"Of course they can Dodge/Parry the attack!"

And the reason why is how you've phrased the question. It would have perhaps been better to word it like this:


"The rules for reactions state that they cannot be used in your own turn, only during someone else's turn. Delay allows other characters to take actions, including attack actions, during your turn. If a character uses a Delay to make an attack action during your turn, can you Dodge/Parry it given the usual restrictions for using Reactions in your own turn?" 

BYE

 

 

That is why I phrased the question that way. I felt that if I didn't include the second part (or something similar) whoever was reading the rules may have just given the answer one way or the other with only a quick thought about the issues (whatever bit of the rules happened to be forefront in their mind). By highlighting the conflict with other elements of the rules and balance it can hopefully ensure 1) they think about it for a little longer and explicitly state what the position is in this regard 2) possible draw attention to something that in some people's eyes not been completely dealt with. I felt the question in the FAQ has that problem, as it is not necessarily clear whether the response is to the particular case of attacking someone in their own turn (as I and others have suggested it is) or whether it is a general statement of "do as the rules say in that specific situation" (as is your interpretation).

If it turned out that it actually was intended that Delay could be used to bypass defences then this question should generate such a statement, regardless of the fact that it is somewhat leading (as I will admit).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 In my humble opinion, by stating "may dodge as normal" they are implying that this dodge is taken outside of the normal rules for reaction timing. In other words they're saying "You can dodge as if it was your turn", only in language that wouldn't suddenly open the gate for abuse of the "if it was your turn" clause. Or for simple writing and they just thought people would get the point.

It seems fairly straightforward to me, as well as several others here. It seems logical, it still takes up the player's reaction so they won't be able to use it for other abilities that use reactions or even for attempting to dodge things outside their turn. It's just burning up that reaction a couple phases earlier than usual, out of proper timing because the delay attack itself is outside of proper timing. 

But that's just my opinion.

 

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...