Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



The Psycannon rules (on page 18 of the DH codex) say: "Only Armour saves may be taken against a psycannon, invulnerable saves may not be taken."



QUESTION: Do you play that models wounded by Psycannons can use a cover save (if they are in cover) or do Psycannon wounds not allow a cover save at all?



OPTION A. The RAW: Cover saves may not be taken against Psycannon wounds.



OPTION B. Cover saves may indeed be taken against Psycannon wounds.



OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

I didn't even know it said that. No cover saves.

When I play against more reasonable opponents, I usually point this out from the get-go, and they agree to play by the RAW, as it's perfectly clear. Even if the RAW rubs them the wrong way, I remind them that the weapon costs 25 points on a 25 point model that has to give up his other (good) weapons.

This really shouldn't even be an issue IMO.

ColonelEllios wrote:When I play against more reasonable opponents, I usually point this out from the get-go, and they agree to play by the RAW, as it's perfectly clear. Even if the RAW rubs them the wrong way, I remind them that the weapon costs 25 points on a 25 point model that has to give up his other (good) weapons.

Price has nothing to do with justifying your point. Lascannons cost IG 25 points but don't get to ignore cover saves....

I choose B as the rule does not mention cover saves at all and also for fluff as the psycannon is ignoring their magical protection, not bypassing LOS issues from hiding behind cover.

When the Incinerator says it ignore Invulnerable Save and Cover Saves, you can pretty much tell they're not considering them to be the same thing.

RAW does not in any way, shape, or form give Psycannons the ability to ignore cover saves.

These are clearly defined as being separate in the game.

We play it like the rules say: Psy-cannons do not bypass cover saves, just invulnerable ones.

Nurglitch wrote:We play it like the rules say: Psy-cannons do not bypass cover saves, just invulnerable ones.

Stelek wrote:RAW does not in any way, shape, or form give Psycannons the ability to ignore cover saves.
These are clearly defined as being separate in the game.

Really? Where do they say either of these things? All the pertinent rules were posted by Yak...

snooggums wrote:Price has nothing to do with justifying your point. Lascannons cost IG 25 points but don't get to ignore cover saves....

I choose B as the rule does not mention cover saves at all...

What I said had nothing to do with "justification." Most opponents think it's weird to have a weapon that ignores cover saves, and pointing out that it costs 25 points usually causes them to smirk and say "ya, ok, whatever..." as they remember they're playing against Demonhunters...

To address your second point, the rule doesn't have to mention cover saves at all. "Only armor saves may be taken." is the only pertinent phrase regarding how psycannons work in the whole game.

Becasue they mention cover saves for the incinerator I feel it is intended for cover saves to be taken against psycannons.

It is not always about the RAW of one particular sentence when other sentences in the same codex seem to contradict it.

What contradiction? You are making stuff up, plain and simple.

Incinerators ignore cover saves because they are a template weapon. There is nothing to indicate that this is "in exception" to the way psycannons work, and psycannons aren't mentioned in the rules for incinerators.

What other "sentences" "contradict" the wording for Psycannons in the armory?

Trying to make rules from "intent" is despised by most people, especially here in YMDC.

Darth- The Incinerator and Psycannon are two distinct weapons with their own individual rules. Using one weapon's rules to justify another weapon's rules 'intent' is almost the weakest argument going... You don't go around justifying bolter rules with flamer rules do you? Classic apples and oranges comparison...

That being said, I play that they still grant cover saves even though the RAW does not specifically support this. The Colonel's post is pertinent however- "only armor saves may be taken" is exclusionary of all other saves.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
on·ly /ˈoʊnli/
–adverb 1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively: This information is for your eyes only. (italics are my highlight)


I suspect they threw in the part about Inv saves in an attempt to prevent discussions like this one, but as usual, their attempt was half-a$$ed and not fully thought-through. From a RAW perspective, the Colonel is right, but I don't play that way because it creates too much crying and moaning...

There is ZERO reason to tell me incinerators ignore cover saves when the BBB tells us that ALL flamer template weapons ignore cover saves. The only reason to put that in the weapons page is to tell you the unique abilities of the Psycannon and Incinerator might throw people off so we will clarify it here. It reminds us that the incinerator ignores cover saves, it does not tell us that the psycannon ignores them.

Why have the sentence in the psycannon entry that specifically forbids invulnerable saves and not cover saves. Tell me that. If 'only armor saves' is good enough, why have the clarification and not include cover saves?

It shows me what their intent is. These posts also tell me that someone wants their 50pt model to do more than it does already.

This is not a weak argument. It convinced me, and apparently by reading the poll results, has convinced a lot more people.

@ Beast Suspecting what their intent is with he invulnerable saves is exactly what the Colonel is accusing me of doing. What's good for the goose....

DarthDiggler wrote:Becasue they mention cover saves for the incinerator I feel it is intended for cover saves to be taken against psycannons.

True but if you look at the Psycannon bolts upgrade for troops it says
" A bolt weapon(storm bolter, bolter, combi-bolter, or bolt pistol) with this upgrade counts as AP4. Only Armour saves may be taken against psycannon bolts; Invunlnerable saves may not be taken

Then if you look at the vehicle upgrade for psycannon bolts it says
" A storm bolter or heavy bolter (twin-linked or otherwise) with this upgrade count as AP 4 and ignores Invulnerable saves; only normal armour saves or cover saves may be taken.

So they mention cover saves for the vehicle upgrade but not the infantry upgrade. So no i dont think cover saves should be allowed against Psycannons or troop weapons that have psycannon bolts.

Boyofdestiny205 wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:Becasue they mention cover saves for the incinerator I feel it is intended for cover saves to be taken against psycannons.

True but if you look at the Psycannon bolts upgrade for troops it says
" A bolt weapon(storm bolter, bolter, combi-bolter, or bolt pistol) with this upgrade counts as AP4. Only Armour saves may be taken against psycannon bolts; Invunlnerable saves may not be taken

Then if you look at the vehicle upgrade for psycannon bolts it says
" A storm bolter or heavy bolter (twin-linked or otherwise) with this upgrade count as AP 4 and ignores Invulnerable saves; only normal armour saves or cover saves may be taken.

So they mention cover saves for the vehicle upgrade but not the infantry upgrade. So no i dont think cover saves should be allowed against Psycannons or troop weapons that have psycannon bolts.

Good point

I think it is bad writing (strange that eh). As per vehicle upgrade I think that gives the intention of what was meant to be done. Yes I know it isn't pure RAW, but when there is a conflict you have to look else where. The same bullet has to have the same effect within the codex.

The problem I see with the argument is pretty simple.

The Psycannon's ignore cover saves crowd doesn't realize the rules are written poorly, so any foundation for a rule not explicitly mentioned is itself on poor footing when the Warhammer ruleset doesn't allow you to take that which isn't written and say it is so.

The opponents of Psycannons ignore cover saves are slightly at fault for reading an 'intent', but with so many examples of poor rules writing throughout the Warhammer system and (for me) clear contradictions within the Daemonhunters book on how psy-weapons operate...I can't put myself into the 'RAW' crowd because the RAW is contradicted several times.

Since I've never come across a psycannon using player that has even implied or looked at me funny when I take my cover saves, I can only assume this is either theoryhammer/rules reach/Indy shenanigans.

With my own experiences and my own contacts with GW, I've never heard of this coming up except as a 'no, psycannons do not ignore cover saves only incinerators do'. YMMV, of course.

Just realized i forgot to say this in the last post. I dont think cover saves should be allowed but that doesnt mean ill argue with someone during a game about it cause its not completely clear. You could argue for hours about the grey area of the rules and thats not the reason i came to the flgs or tourney. I came to play and win with an army that has a bad rep and show you what knights can do.

Stelek wrote:The Psycannon's ignore cover saves crowd doesn't realize the rules are written poorly, so any foundation for a rule not explicitly mentioned is itself on poor footing when the Warhammer ruleset doesn't allow you to take that which isn't written and say it is so.

Whether the rules are poorly written or not is completely irrelevant when determining what it is that the rules actually say. That the RAW might not make sense is also irrelevant. That it's impossible to play the game using the RAW is also irrelevant. What's relevant in this thread is two things. The first is the poll question that asks how people play the game, which relaxes the RAW argument just a bit. The second is determining what the rules actually say. What the designer's may or may not have intended the rules to mean doesn't matter one bit, nor do inferences or comparisons to how other rules are written.

Buoyancy wrote:

Stelek wrote:The Psycannon's ignore cover saves crowd doesn't realize the rules are written poorly, so any foundation for a rule not explicitly mentioned is itself on poor footing when the Warhammer ruleset doesn't allow you to take that which isn't written and say it is so.

Whether the rules are poorly written or not is completely irrelevant when determining what it is that the rules actually say. That the RAW might not make sense is also irrelevant. That it's impossible to play the game using the RAW is also irrelevant. What's relevant in this thread is two things. The first is the poll question that asks how people play the game, which relaxes the RAW argument just a bit. The second is determining what the rules actually say. What the designer's may or may not have intended the rules to mean doesn't matter one bit, nor do inferences or comparisons to how other rules are written.

You can replace the two sides of this argument with Supreme Court Justices. Strict constructionists interpretation with what the founders intended using other sources as evidence. Just as it has never reached a consensus in the courts, it will be hard to reach one here.

Buoyancy, saying 'I don't care about any facts but the ones I choose to present' is not really useful.

The first question in the poll is wrong on it's premise since it's obvious RAW doesn't actually give a clear-cut view on what psycannons do or don't do.

You can choose to believe RAW is RAW, and to hell with everything else. I have a really long list of rules lawyering I toss out for everyone who decides they need to play this way. Usually 5 minutes of 'that isn't by the rules' is sufficient to dissuade players from being asshats about RAW and get back to playing the game for fun.

Hell, just making people roll 1 dice at a time is enough to break even the most recalcitrant jackass of his bad gaming habits.

Leave the RAW is RAW argument at home. GW wants you to. It's even in the RAW.

Asshats? Radio from Hell FTW

Buoyancy wrote:

Stelek wrote:The Psycannon's ignore cover saves crowd doesn't realize the rules are written poorly, so any foundation for a rule not explicitly mentioned is itself on poor footing when the Warhammer ruleset doesn't allow you to take that which isn't written and say it is so.

Whether the rules are poorly written or not is completely irrelevant when determining what it is that the rules actually say. That the RAW might not make sense is also irrelevant. That it's impossible to play the game using the RAW is also irrelevant. What's relevant in this thread is two things. The first is the poll question that asks how people play the game, which relaxes the RAW argument just a bit. The second is determining what the rules actually say. What the designer's may or may not have intended the rules to mean doesn't matter one bit, nor do inferences or comparisons to how other rules are written.

I really disagree with you on this point. You have the two different weapons (vehicle/ pyscannon) firing exactly the same round. To have two separate rules for them is just wrong and not even GW rule writers are that bad. RAW is not always right if it produces an obvious inconsistancy or error. To claim otherwise is to be dogmatic and blinkered. Maybe if a rules set only produced a very rare inconsistancy I could agree with you, but we all know that this is not the case for 40k.

YMDC/ RAW can only work if you look at all the evidence and see how rules interact with other rules within the codex or the big book. This doesn't mean a 14,000 word article of impenetrable gibberish (aka semantic analysizzzzzz), just a bit more further reading that just the paragraph the rule is in.

Stelek wrote:The first question in the poll is wrong on it's premise since it's obvious RAW doesn't actually give a clear-cut view on what psycannons do or don't do.

This statement is either a blatant lie or proof that you have the reading comprehension of a five year-old. Psycannons clearly state that the target may only take armour saves. It then goes on to add the irrelevant detail that invulnerable saves may not be taken. Since the target may only take armour saves, the target may not use cover saves. This cannot be any more clear cut or simple to read. The second half of the sentence is only needed to help explain the rules for psycannons to people that aren't able to read the rule as it is written.

You can choose to believe RAW is RAW, and to hell with everything else. I have a really long list of rules lawyering I toss out for everyone who decides they need to play this way. Usually 5 minutes of 'that isn't by the rules' is sufficient to dissuade players from being asshats about RAW and get back to playing the game for fun.

I'm well aware of this. You'll notice that I already pointed out in my response to you that it's impossible to play the game using the RAW. Why would you bother bringing up this red herring?

Leave the RAW is RAW argument at home. GW wants you to. It's even in the RAW.

Have you even bothered to read the stickied threads at the top of this page? This forum is for RAW arguments. Intent arguments have no place, are do nothing but waste the time of everybody who reads them.

Buoyancy wrote:Psycannons clearly state that the target may only take armour saves.

Right.

Which means no cover save. No Invulnerable saves. No movement. No shooting. No Psychic powers. All the model can do from that point on (since it doesn't state any time limit on the effect) is take armour saves...


Unfortunately, in this particular case, we don't have enough information to decide on what they were getting at from the context, so RAW tends to fall down. It's possible that they meant that Armour saves were the only type of save the model could take... which makes the inclusion of the statement about Invulnerables completely unecessary and vaguely confusing since no mention is made of cover saves.

Or, it's possible that they simply didn't consider cover saves to be a normal type of save... they're not inherent to the model, they're something special that comes from elsewhere. So the Psycannon only references Armour and Invulnerable saves as they are the 'normal' types of saves that apply to models, and so cover saves would be unaffected.


I personally lean towards the latter. Cover saves aren't an armour save in the same way as Armour and Invulnerable saves are, and so aren't affected.

fullheadofhair wrote:I really disagree with you on this point. You have the two different weapons (vehicle/ pyscannon) firing exactly the same round.

This is an argument from the fluff text and is thus useless in determining what the rules state. The psycannon has only the abilities that its specific rules give it, and the fact that other weapons with similar names have different rules does not influence what the rules for this specific weapon are.

To have two separate rules for them is just wrong and not even GW rule writers are that bad.

Yes, they are that bad, and it needs to be pointed out over and over again in every single case where they make such obvious mistakes. The GW writers can't even be bothered to copy edit their work, so it should come as no surprise that they make blatant errors. The Current 40K Ork codex is a perfect example. There are units who have been granted rules that they cannot use (Waagh for non-infantry models), and units that have different weapons in the descriptive text and unit entry (Twin-linked vs. non twin-linked weapons for bikers).

RAW is not always right if it produces an obvious inconsistancy or error. To claim otherwise is to be dogmatic and blinkered. Maybe if a rules set only produced a very rare inconsistancy I could agree with you, but we all know that this is not the case for 40k.

RAW is "correct" by definition, and any other standard results in the players creating their own house rules. That the RAW are contradictory and create an unplayable game is irrelevant to whether the rules are "correct". If you ignore the RAW, then you are not playing the game according to the rulebook, you are playing the game according to your own house rules. There's nothing wrong with playing by house rules, and it is in fact, necessary when dealing with GW products, but house rules are not, and can never be, the rules as written.

It's relatively clear that the designers probably intended psycannons to allow cover saves. However, they do not as the rule is currently written . Allowing models to take cover saves from psycannon wounds is thus a change of the rules, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with that.

There is a vast gulf between looking at something from a RAW and rules as intended perspective. The RAW are correct, but the RAI are playable. What's necessary is to avoid confusing the two when discussing an interpretation of a rule.

insaniak wrote:

Buoyancy wrote:Psycannons clearly state that the target may only take armour saves.

Right.

Which means no cover save. No Invulnerable saves. No movement. No shooting. No Psychic powers. All the model can do from that point on (since it doesn't state any time limit on the effect) is take armour saves...

That's exactly the type of overblown and just-plain-wrong reasoning that the "RAW=Unplayable" camp would have you believe.

RAW, according to GW's definition, uses the main rulebook as precedent and the codexes for overriding that precedent in the case of unique abilities or rules.

So, if you want to completely ignore all the rest of the written rules, within which the rules of psycannons make sense (and this is how RAW is applied), then go ahead and claim the game is unplayable by RAW. But that doesn't legitimize your point.

Why is it that the "RAW=Unplayable" crowd also tends to have the most problems with reading comprehension and rational discussion?

And in the case where players have "ruled" despite the RAW, does not mean that they are rendering their ruling from "intent." There are more mechanisms than you can count on one hand for determining how rules work in this game, if players feel the need and the rule book is unclear or inadequate.

ColonelEllios wrote:That's exactly the type of overblown and just-plain-wrong reasoning that the "RAW=Unplayable" camp would have you believe.

Actually, it's just a response to someone's claim that the rules says something that it actually doesn't.

'may only take armour saves' and 'only armour saves may be taken' don't actually mean the same thing.

Why is it that the "RAW=Unplayable" crowd also tends to have the most problems with reading comprehension and rational discussion?

'coz we're just dumm hicks from the countree.


I'm not sure where you're getting the idea though that 'RAW is unplayable' is coming from some sort of extremist group. RAW is unplayable. It's a handy resource for determining what the rules actually say, but GW's rules contain far too many ambiguities for it to actually be strictly adhered to on the tabletop.

I've read the DH codex a number of times, and I've always believed (I think I even saw one used once) that Psycannons did not ignore cover saves.

However, if it came up and my opponent pointed that out, that it says, "Only Armour saves can be taken ..." (when there are three types of saves: Armour, Cover and Invulnerable) I would agree that no cover saves were allowed, unless it was an official event with a judge. On top of that, if it was me I would fight the ruling unless it was VERY set in precedent ie a casual LGS event with no judges present.

The comparison to the incinerator is a good RAI argument, but that's all it is. RAW is RAW, and that's the way I for one like to play. And the reason why is because it's a GAME. And games need agreement on the rules, putting the emphasis on tactics and strategy.

GW has often poorly written rules which is why a good 1/3 and growing of my mini money goes into Hordes.

As far as being a sportsman is concerned, I also don't mind a little extra maybe being given to what is a pretty pricey weapon anyway.

DarthDiggler wrote:There is ZERO reason to tell me incinerators ignore cover saves when the BBB tells us that ALL flamer template weapons ignore cover saves. The only reason to put that in the weapons page is to tell you the unique abilities of the Psycannon and Incinerator might throw people off so we will clarify it here. It reminds us that the incinerator ignores cover saves, it does not tell us that the psycannon ignores them.

The codex tells us that Psycannons allow only armor saves... Talking about incinerators vis-a-vis psycannons is meaningless here.

DarthDiggler wrote:Why have the sentence in the psycannon entry that specifically forbids invulnerable saves and not cover saves. Tell me that. If 'only armor saves' is good enough, why have the clarification and not include cover saves?

I think I already did that... nobody except the author of the codex can do any more...

DarthDiggler wrote:It shows me what their intent is.

Does it really? Were you in on their discussions when they wrote the codex? Have they personally told you what their intent is? Claiming intent omniscience here doesn't help your argument...

DarthDiggler wrote:This is not a weak argument. It convinced me, and apparently by reading the poll results, has convinced a lot more people.

It is a weak RAW argument. You have far more standing in a RAI argument, but none in a RAW argument. I happen to play it as you do because it just isn't worth the effort of a rules debate in every game and the weapon does what I want it to do without the benefit of negating cover saves anyway... and that is what the question asked in the first place. This RAW debate has sprung up from the dead stinking carcass of the thoroughly beaten horse that can be found in numerous other threads.

DarthDiggler wrote:@ Beast Suspecting what their intent is with he invulnerable saves is exactly what the Colonel is accusing me of doing. What's good for the goose....

Suspecting something doesn't do anything for a RAW argument and it wasn't directed at you anyway. I added that to clarify my playing habits, not to lend any credence to my RAW argument (as it clearly is counter to that).

Stelek wrote:The Psycannon's ignore cover saves crowd doesn't realize the rules are written poorly, so any foundation for a rule not explicitly mentioned is itself on poor footing when the Warhammer ruleset doesn't allow you to take that which isn't written and say it is so.

Nice assumption about the 'crowd' (and we all know what happens when we assume). just kidding

Stelek wrote:The opponents of Psycannons ignore cover saves are slightly at fault for reading an 'intent', but with so many examples of poor rules writing throughout the Warhammer system and (for me) clear contradictions within the Daemonhunters book on how psy-weapons operate...I can't put myself into the 'RAW' crowd because the RAW is contradicted several times.

Nothing wrong with an intent argument, so long as you are not trying to disguise it as a RAW argument. Yak started this thread as a 'how do you play' (aka RAI?). The RAW has sprung up yet again because of the very poor rule-writing you mentioned above.

Stelek wrote:With my own experiences and my own contacts with GW, I've never heard of this coming up except as a 'no, psycannons do not ignore cover saves only incinerators do'.

Care to give us a quote (date, time, place, person)? I don't know of an FAQ for this poorly written rule. Your 'GW contacts' experience doesn't do it for me... in a RAW sense anyway. (I fully agree with you from a RulesAsProbablyIntended perspective).