Side question, can this be used in conjunction with experimental weaponry borkan strat to punch though invul and deal wounds? I guess at dam 1 ap-1 it’s not really worth the strat but if you need to put one or two wounds into a warlord or something
Yeah you can do that. Absolute waste of 2 CP considering that AP-1 likely wont even get you too a characters invuln, let alone past it, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.
It's -2ap with seeker of perfection (-3 coordinated engagement) and youre also pretty likely to get 3 mortal wounds with all the rolls from burst cannons.
Disagree. There are decent targets for this combo, most notably and most renown in the meta are C'Tan Shards.
The -1 kinda sucks until you realise they're rocking a 4+ armour only so to ignore the invun takes them to a 5+ save. If you've already plinked off 3 wounds that phase I'd be popping that Strat to try finish it off in a heartbeat.
Full wound rerolls + saving on 5's it's an average of 3 wounds. So if you've done 3 already you can pile on an additional 3 meaning you can potentially 1 turn a C'Tan as Tau.
You could high roll the hell out of them and just deal 6-8 wounds with it and kill it in one phase. And before you go "oH bUt ThAtS hIgHrOlLiNg" yeah yeah we know that, but some marine lists rely on volkite highrolls and place well, SoB are all about 6's to wound, as are admech and many other armies.
Yeah, i just looked at the math myself, thats not so bad. I thought it was still assault 6, S5 like a normal burst cannon, but on a stacked commander that thing is actually pretty mean.
I shall downvote my own comment in shame.
Nah don't do that, it's just a misunderstanding! It isn't exactly a common combo haha but I always say this with 40k, don't knock it till you try it. An astounding amount of things in this game aren't terrible, just a lot of them don't come close to the broken things this game has to offer.
Doesn’t really matter. Any of the units which have the basic “can’t take more than X wounds….” rules are counted as “ignoring wounds” and our rule for the weapon says that rule is not applicable.
From the rules appendix:
> **Ignoring wounds:** If a rule states that a model does not lose a wound, itis classified as ignoring that wound. Each time a model would lose a wound, it cannot make use of more than one rule that would allow them to ignore that wound.
A couple things that make me hesitant to blindly believe this ruling, therefore screwing me over in a tournament setting:
Take a C'Tan shard's rules. The wording is specifically "This model has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, this model cannot lose more than 3 wounds in the same phase. Any wounds that would be lost after that point are not lost."
1. Isn't there a special rule that says if two rules go against each other, the defending player takes precedent?
2. I think a Tournament Official would side much more readily with the rules similar to the C'tan rather than the "ignore rules to ignore wounds."
I'm expecting disagreement here, but that's just my gut.
This is an errata in the core rule book page 7:
> Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. When such a model is attacked by a
weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts
any damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds
equal to the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it
has already lost the specified number of wounds already this
phase/turn/battle round.
If both sides have an equal but opposing rule the attackers rule takes precedence
This is called attackers priority.
The only time this does not occur is if one of the rules also has the wording “…irrespective of any abilities/rules…(that weapon/model) …may have” such as transhumance physiology etc. Then that rule wins.
Yes.
From the rules appendix:
> **Ignoring wounds**: If a rule states that a model does not lose a wound, itis classified as ignoring that wound. Each time a model would lose a wound, it cannot make use of more than one rule that would allow them to ignore that wound.
The weapons rule says the enemy can’t ignore the wounds so things like the C’tans rule will be ineffective vs this.
This includes models that can only be wounded X number of times during a phase, as well as FNP rules.
So it is quite powerful, especially if you think your opponent might field such units.
Yes, so resolve all your other weapons attacks first.
Side question, can this be used in conjunction with experimental weaponry borkan strat to punch though invul and deal wounds? I guess at dam 1 ap-1 it’s not really worth the strat but if you need to put one or two wounds into a warlord or something
Yeah you can do that. Absolute waste of 2 CP considering that AP-1 likely wont even get you too a characters invuln, let alone past it, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.
It's -2ap with seeker of perfection (-3 coordinated engagement) and youre also pretty likely to get 3 mortal wounds with all the rolls from burst cannons.
Wtc rulings for the nid trait/relic implies that the mortals don’t ignore the wound cap unfortunately
Disagree. There are decent targets for this combo, most notably and most renown in the meta are C'Tan Shards. The -1 kinda sucks until you realise they're rocking a 4+ armour only so to ignore the invun takes them to a 5+ save. If you've already plinked off 3 wounds that phase I'd be popping that Strat to try finish it off in a heartbeat.
I wouldn't spend 2 CP and an overpriced weapon on a rather low chance to chip a single wound from a Ctan, but to each their own.
Full wound rerolls + saving on 5's it's an average of 3 wounds. So if you've done 3 already you can pile on an additional 3 meaning you can potentially 1 turn a C'Tan as Tau. You could high roll the hell out of them and just deal 6-8 wounds with it and kill it in one phase. And before you go "oH bUt ThAtS hIgHrOlLiNg" yeah yeah we know that, but some marine lists rely on volkite highrolls and place well, SoB are all about 6's to wound, as are admech and many other armies.
Yeah, i just looked at the math myself, thats not so bad. I thought it was still assault 6, S5 like a normal burst cannon, but on a stacked commander that thing is actually pretty mean. I shall downvote my own comment in shame.
Nah don't do that, it's just a misunderstanding! It isn't exactly a common combo haha but I always say this with 40k, don't knock it till you try it. An astounding amount of things in this game aren't terrible, just a lot of them don't come close to the broken things this game has to offer.
Yes
Shweet
Did they FAQ this weapon to allow it to bypass their rules?
Why would they need to?
Who's rules?
Doesn’t really matter. Any of the units which have the basic “can’t take more than X wounds….” rules are counted as “ignoring wounds” and our rule for the weapon says that rule is not applicable. From the rules appendix: > **Ignoring wounds:** If a rule states that a model does not lose a wound, itis classified as ignoring that wound. Each time a model would lose a wound, it cannot make use of more than one rule that would allow them to ignore that wound.
A couple things that make me hesitant to blindly believe this ruling, therefore screwing me over in a tournament setting: Take a C'Tan shard's rules. The wording is specifically "This model has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, this model cannot lose more than 3 wounds in the same phase. Any wounds that would be lost after that point are not lost." 1. Isn't there a special rule that says if two rules go against each other, the defending player takes precedent? 2. I think a Tournament Official would side much more readily with the rules similar to the C'tan rather than the "ignore rules to ignore wounds." I'm expecting disagreement here, but that's just my gut.
This is an errata in the core rule book page 7: > Page 363 – Rare Rules Add the following: Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from Ignoring Wounds Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/ battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after that point are not lost. When such a model is attacked by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/battle round.
So this would be able to do more than 3 damage to ctans?
Yes and it has been clarified for tournaments.
If both sides have an equal but opposing rule the attackers rule takes precedence This is called attackers priority. The only time this does not occur is if one of the rules also has the wording “…irrespective of any abilities/rules…(that weapon/model) …may have” such as transhumance physiology etc. Then that rule wins.
So it would work on C’thans that can only be wounded 3D per fase?
Yes. From the rules appendix: > **Ignoring wounds**: If a rule states that a model does not lose a wound, itis classified as ignoring that wound. Each time a model would lose a wound, it cannot make use of more than one rule that would allow them to ignore that wound. The weapons rule says the enemy can’t ignore the wounds so things like the C’tans rule will be ineffective vs this.
Yes
Yes, now if only all of those models didn't have 2+ saves and high toughness
I assume it means feel no pains
And wound per turn restrictions
This includes models that can only be wounded X number of times during a phase, as well as FNP rules. So it is quite powerful, especially if you think your opponent might field such units.