How To: Death by Radiation Poisoning in 30k

[SkimaskMohawk]

Topic Split

=][=

Posts about how one may or may not be able to instantly kill something by emitting enough radiation that

their flesh just sloughs off and/or fries electrical systems so instantaneously 

 

 

 

 

No more broken than rad grenades. 

 

In a  mechanicum list you can have you main hq subtract 2 from toughness in melee as well

[Slips]

Iirc, theres currently a way, with a mix of DG and their relic and Mechanicum to have -4T to a unit and thus roll-lessly kill an entire T4 or weaker unit due to T0.

[rendingon1+]

No more broken than rad grenades. 

 

In a  mechanicum list you can have you main hq subtract 2 from toughness in melee as well

Definitely more broken since you don't have to be in cc to make use of it. Rad grenades work only in assault, you have to charge, fight and probably take some casualties in return. -1T at range is therefore more powerfull for obvious reasons.

Of course idea of IDing Justaerin, Deathshroud and other 2W specials with a plasma gun is quite lovely, I don't think it should be a way to fix destroyers.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Well, you don't need to charge, you can be charged too (which is interesting because they're missing the "locked in combat" caveat defensive grenades have, so if they're on a durable source and the melee gets charged once per turn, the grenade debuff refreshes on all enemy units involved). Secondly, as slips pointed out, you can do some nasty toughness debuffs in melee to instant kill units. All you really need is multiple units with rad grenades charging one target to lower the toughness value down to 0, no DG relic necessary.

 

That's in the game right now; making rad-phage go something along the lines of "a unit that is hit by an attack with this rule has their toughness reduced by 1 until the end of the player turn". Don't let it affect the ID threshold, just let it enable easier wounding so weight of fire can be effective; their bolt pistols could see some use without giving them super zanny pistol ammo and their now higher amounts of attacks might do something as well

[rendingon1+]

Well, relics are relics but you can always gamble with Biomancy Enfeeblement for another -1T instead.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Rad grenades stack, just take reaping with DG assault squads and dog pile

[Slips]

Well, relics are relics but you can always gamble with Biomancy Enfeeblement for another -1T instead.

True, and opens up the option to all legions.

 

DG with the relic take this up a notch by making this strat -T4 with the relic (Which are always opponents permission) letting you erase any marine unit you charge into. Since the relic doesnt take a slot, you can just give it to a JP Libby who goes around enfeebling units while his Mech Buddy just charges into units to evaporate them.

Rad grenades stack, just take reaping with DG assault squads and dog pile

If you can set aside that many units, sure, go for it.

[SkimaskMohawk]

In the context of removing mass annoying infantry, I don't think 3 units of troops is that much of an investment. Or two and destroyers

[Slips]

In the context of removing mass annoying infantry, I don't think 3 units of troops is that much of an investment. Or two and destroyers

Depends on what you want to instantly vaporize and how.

 

The Mech Character (and/or Enfeeble libby) helps because he counts as 2 so for T3 you just need 1 more unit.

 

For T4, 2 Units + Radgos-Prime is still not too bad.

 

Without those, however, its 3 Units for T3 which isnt that bad, but 4 for T4.

 

Now, however, (4)5 Units charging into a T5 Custodes Doom Squad is definitely worth it.

[Charlo]

Wait wait wait.... Rad Grenades STACK

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Why would they ?

 

'During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades

launches an assault, or is themselves assaulted, the enemy unit(s)

suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the Assault

phase.'

 

It explicitly says Rad Grenades. There's no mention of stacking here.

[Charlo]

That's what I thought... Yet the discussion above

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Rad 'nades and Rad Furnace would stack for example, because they're two distinct separate effects. 

 

But the wording on the Rad Grenades makes it clear. There's no indication of them being cumulative whatsoever. 

[Torvak Kyre]

Rad 'nades and Rad Furnace would stack for example, because they're two distinct separate effects.

 

But the wording on the Rad Grenades makes it clear. There's no indication of them being cumulative whatsoever.

It could be argued that as it states ‘a’ unit, it suffers the -1 for each unit with rad grenades involved.

 

I’ve never used or played against rad grenades so it’s never come up but that’s how I’d interpret it.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Yes, 'a'  unit. 

 

But Rad Grenades.

 

Making it irrelevant if it is one, three, nine or threehundredfortyfive grenades, the unit suffers -1 to their Toughness.

 

 

Also, to be honest, I have never encountered or played someone who claimed they would stack.

This is the first time I see it 'interpreted'  that way. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

The trigger is the unit being equipped. It's true that the amount doesn't matter, but only on a unit basis; giving a squad one or ten doesn't change the effect. But the subject is clearly not about the amount of Grenades, but the singular unit using said amount.

[Brofist]

Rad nades have always stacked. I'm surprised this is news to some folks. It just almost never comes up because its a tough in-game maneuver to pull off.

[ProsperoStands]

Rad nades have always stacked. I'm surprised this is news to some folks. It just almost never comes up because its a tough in-game maneuver to pull off.

No, they do not.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Maybe we should all put it into our respective mails to FW for the next FAQ.

Because obviously, people here are of differing opinions.

[Ficinus]

The issue isn't the plural of grenades, it is the word "a" itself, which can be used as an article to mean "one single," but it can also be used to mean "any," "every," or even "at least one." Take the sentence, "If you eat an almond you will get sick." It doesn't mean "if you eat a single almond" or "for each almond you eat," it means "if you eat one or more" or "even if you eat only one." Or take the sentence "A limping zebra will be left behind by the herd." It means any such animal.

 

So, we have to which interpretation of "a" works best for "During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is themselves assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the Assault phase." Now, "a turn" means "any turn," and "a -1 penalty" means "one single -1 penalty." "An assault" is indeterminate, but is almost certainly dependent on "a unit." So, does "a unit" mean "one single unit" or "any unit," and if it means "one single unit," should the entire sentence then be interpreted to mean "for each such unit." I would contend that the simplest reading is "any unit," since the subject of the sentence is the unit receiving the modifier, not the unit applying it. Which is to say, a unit does not cause a modifier so much as a unit is modified by certain conditions. If a single unit is assaulted twice in the same turn by two different units with rad grenades, it is a turn in which a unit with rad grenades assaulted it.

 

Edit: Actually, the sentence structure is very important too. The sentence says: During a turn in which X happens, Y happens (where X is a unit with rad grenades assaults or is assaulted and Y is a unit suffers a -1 penalty to their toughness). The way this would be applied is to go to a unit and ask "Did an enemy unit with rad grenades assault this unit or did this unit assault an enemy unit with rad grenades?" If the answer is yes, that unit suffers -1 toughness.

 

It does not say that during a turn where X happens, Y happens for every X nor does it say something along the lines of "A unit with rad grenades applies a -1 penalty to the toughness of any enemy unit it is in combat with during a turn in which the unit assaulted or was assaulted." If it said either, it would be stackable. As it is, it is simply a penalty a unit abstractly suffers if certain conditions are met, so not stackable as the conditions are either met or not met.