Lelith and Quad Gun

Well ive got a 'mostly' friendly store so i play it nicely. They declare, they measure, there out. I lets them shoot anything in range. While i could do it your way i know id like to be treated that way. Then again in a tourney i would pull every trick in the book

I am always measuring things, both before I declare anything as well as in my opponents turn. The more info you have the better you can play. All the games I played at masters a couple of weeks ago saw nearly all the players doing similar things.

Anyway... Back on topic..,

Lelith's grenades/quad gun/etc = best. loophole. ever.

Not that I would ever try and use it, but this is how I see it:

That picture is pure awesome!

HAHA! Loved the cartoon!

Mud

I would argue for any of her attacks ignoring armor saves, mostly because of what Balisong pointed out. They already looked at her entry and FAQ'ed a different ability. If they wanted to change it they would have added a line about the penetrating blade only working on melee attacks.

jb7090 wrote:

I would argue for any of her attacks ignoring armor saves, mostly because of what Balisong pointed out. They already looked at her entry and FAQ'ed a different ability. If they wanted to change it they would have added a line about the penetrating blade only working on melee attacks.

By the same argument there will never be another FAQ for existing rules and codexes as GW have looked at them already.

jb7090 wrote:

I would argue for any of her attacks ignoring armor saves, mostly because of what Balisong pointed out. They already looked at her entry and FAQ'ed a different ability. If they wanted to change it they would have added a line about the penetrating blade only working on melee attacks.

If that were true there wouldn't have even been a 1.1 version. Didn't they already look at it in the 1.0 version? Surely since they did they fixed every issue that could possibly have ever come up and as such no further updates would be necessary... But since there is a 1.1 we can clearly see that no they didn't fix every issue and we have no reason to think they did this time either.

Maybe they looked at "Penetrating Blade" and didn't ask themselves "Huh I wonder how this interacts with Grenades and Gun Emplacements?" I know I've never asked myself that before this thread nor has anyone else I know done so.

Count Adhemar wrote:

jb7090 wrote:

I would argue for any of her attacks ignoring armor saves, mostly because of what Balisong pointed out. They already looked at her entry and FAQ'ed a different ability. If they wanted to change it they would have added a line about the penetrating blade only working on melee attacks.

By the same argument there will never be another FAQ for existing rules and codexes as GW have looked at them already.

No...what it means is that they took at look at her entry when 6th hit, decided that only 1 entry required clarification. Dont be snarky. If they FAQ it later, then fine, but for now its RAW all her attacks ignore armor saves. Even with that, shes still a crap HQ.

jb7090 wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

jb7090 wrote:

I would argue for any of her attacks ignoring armor saves, mostly because of what Balisong pointed out. They already looked at her entry and FAQ'ed a different ability. If they wanted to change it they would have added a line about the penetrating blade only working on melee attacks.

By the same argument there will never be another FAQ for existing rules and codexes as GW have looked at them already.

No...what it means is that they took at look at her entry when 6th hit, decided that only 1 entry required clarification. Dont be snarky.

The fact that a codex entry has a single FAQ question and answer in no way means that the rest of the codex entry is 100% kosher. To the best of my knowledge there are at least 7 FAQ answers for the Jaws of the World Wolf psychic power, not all of which were done at the same time.

If you can look your opponent in the eyes and tell him that you genuinely think this is what GW intended then fine. Common sense and many long years experience of GW rules writing and (absence of) editorial control tells me otherwise. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable attempting to use such a blatant oversight/looophole unless I was playing against a WAAC player who was attempting to abuse the rules in a similar manner.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Common sense and many long years experience of GW rules writing .

There's your problem, applying common sense to GW rules. They arent written tightly for competitive play and thus things like this pop up. I wouldent have any issue with someone using this against me.

Great cartoon
and maybe for you this is different but I'm used to this kind of rule play, my friends and I all play where if it is written in there it can be done. Our philosophy on GW rules writing is that it isn't all that great in situations like this but we get along just fine since we allow both sides to use RAW arguments. It boils down to discussing with your opponent before a game so you can clarify this sort of rule or others like it, as honestly I would have no problem if my opponent used this or some other RAW argument that is just outrageous soo long as they said something beforehand because then I am aware of all the rules which is the fundamental thing it comes down to when playing, making sure both players are aware of all the rules.

Cheers wittykid, mudpuppet, mushkilla

I think we can all agree that using her rule to ignore ranged attacks depends on the opponent. RAW it is pretty clear; so if your group plays that way make the most of it before it gets FAQ'd out (FAQ'd off, perhaps?). If they don't, and may not appreciate the funny side, save it for that special someone who's always trying to shaft you with dodgy RAW extensions.