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.

Do you get Feel No Pain against a wound caused by "Gets Hot"?

Effectively is the wound caused by "Gets Hot" or by an AP2 weapon?

Thanks

plc

PLC wrote:Do you get Feel No Pain against a wound caused by "Gets Hot"?

Effectively is the wound caused by "Gets Hot" or by an AP2 weapon?

Thanks

plc

By RAW, it's caused by the rule "Gets Hot" and not by the weapon itself, so yes, you would get FNP.

Gets hot is not AP2.

Gets Hot is not AP-

It just has no AP. It has no strength either tbh. You take a Wound, and can take an armour save. If you fail you can take FNP.

RAW it's debatable. You can as easily claim that the wound is caused by the weapon as that the wound is just caused by a special rule the weapon happens to have.

RAI I think it's pretty clear saves are allowed.

Webbe wrote:RAW it's debatable. You can as easily claim that the wound is caused by the weapon as that the wound is just caused by a special rule the weapon happens to have.

RAI I think it's pretty clear saves are allowed.

RaW is not debateable at all!

RaW says "Takes a Wound" not "Takes a wound as though wounded by the weapon"

From one perspective the weapon causes the wound indirectly via the Gets Hot! rule. It's still the weapon that have that rule so it's the weapon that causes the wound.

As I already said I don't believe this is RAI and I would never play this way.

And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Gwar! wrote:And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Good luck with that.

Thanks guys, seems pretty unanimous.

plc

you still get the FNP from a "gets hot" rule


if you would like another example here, bomb squigs are assumed to be AP - since they have no AP in the description.

the description for "gets hot" does not state how AP is worked out from the wound, so as before its considered as AP - like the squig.

if you want to take a look at this and use some common sense, just a little info:

"Gets hot" means thier gun overheats.

it does not mean they somehow shoot themselves with the weapon.

some people have argued it explodes when it overheats, yet the gun can still be used if the user survives?



its a pretty basic argument here, some seem to think the models with overheating weapons shoot themselves with the gun.
it states no AP for "gets hot", nor does it say the model has managed to shoot its self with the gun.

all it is: TFG trying to make up a lame argument to try and catch the spotlight for 5 mins.

Webbe wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Good luck with that.

Um, please tell me that in most cases you are playing RAW, right?

Otherwise, WTF?

if you would like another example here, bomb squigs are assumed to be AP - since they have no AP in the description.

the description for "gets hot" does not state how AP is worked out from the wound, so as before its considered as AP - like the squig.

I realize it has no real bearing on this discussion, but having no Ap is *not* the same as having AP-

JD21290 wrote:if you would like another example here, bomb squigs are assumed to be AP - since they have no AP in the description.

7 Shades of Wrong there mate.

See this thread for why

Gwar! wrote:And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Not true.

Case in point: Most tournaments and game shops allow the use of deffrollas (sp?) against vehicles instead of the ram rule with its armor 14 value, which is especially good against land raiders.

Now, this is not legal in RAW, since the deffrolla is used in a tank shock, and in the tank shock rules it specifically states that if you come within one inch of an enemy vehicle and DONT ram it, you must stop your vehicle. (If Im not mistaken, my BRB is on lend).

Also, going back to one of your statements Gwar, if Im not mistaken, which Im not, you stated that essentially any list is legal as long as your local game shops allow it. The same can be said in RaW vs RaI. Some people can be forgiving, or others can be complete tools and deny people the fun of playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

DiscipleofCaliban wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Not true.

Case in point: Most tournaments and game shops allow the use of deffrollas (sp?) against vehicles instead of the ram rule with its armor 14 value, which is especially good against land raiders.

Now, this is not legal in RAW, since the deffrolla is used in a tank shock, and in the tank shock rules it specifically states that if you come within one inch of an enemy vehicle and DONT ram it, you must stop your vehicle. (If Im not mistaken, my BRB is on lend).

Actually, this debate happened a long time ago, and Ramming with a Deffrolla can be supported by RAW because of the statement "Ramming is a special form of tank shock", and you can Tank Shock and Ram at the same time, as is outlined in the rules for both.

RAW can also be interpreted that Ramming and Tank Shock are two different things...which is wny that issueis a very sticky one and causes alot of debate. Fortunately the INAT FAQ and John Spencer of GW US have both said that Deffrollas cannot be used to Ram, which clears thing sup for alot of people. However, since niehter souce is official, the debate lingers for some people.

In short, don't bring up Deffrollas as an example of playing by RAW, it will only cause problems

DiscipleofCaliban wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Not true.

Case in point: Most tournaments and game shops allow the use of deffrollas (sp?) against vehicles instead of the ram rule with its armor 14 value, which is especially good against land raiders.

Now, this is not legal in RAW, since the deffrolla is used in a tank shock, and in the tank shock rules it specifically states that if you come within one inch of an enemy vehicle and DONT ram it, you must stop your vehicle. (If Im not mistaken, my BRB is on lend).

Also, going back to one of your statements Gwar, if Im not mistaken, which Im not, you stated that essentially any list is legal as long as your local game shops allow it. The same can be said in RaW vs RaI. Some people can be forgiving, or others can be complete tools and deny people the fun of playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

Yes that it is. However, this is a Rules Debate forum.

When asking "Can I do X" you follow the Rules. The assumption is people are asking Rules questions about the Actual rules.

While I do like to point out that you can in effect do whatever the hell you want, in a rules debate about the core rules, you stick to the core rules, not some imagined Rules as Intended (because unless Alessio Cavatore come to me personally and delivers in writing not only what he intended the rule to do but also a 300 page thesis on why he cant bloody write clearly), it holds no water.

The Question "Does Gets Hot! Allow Feel No Pain" is, Rules as Written, Yes. Rules as Intended don't come into play (unless Alessio Cavatore says otherwise, and even then it'll still need an official errata)

List legality has nothing to do with Rules as Written. There isn't a list in the Main Rulebook that says "These Lists are the only legal lists". there are Summery Pages yes, but considering that they are gonna be outdated pretty soon (2 of them are come May) they again don't really mean much.

The Deffrola thing is because Games workshop are too bloody Lazy to update their codex's between game editions so its an incompatibility between a 4th edition codex and the 5th edition ruleset. In that case the only solution IS to discuss with your opponent how to handle it. They even cover it in the rulebook as what to do if it happens.

So, no, Rules as Intended have no bearing on how 40k should be played, but as everything individuals can elect to modify or throw out whatever they want.

Oh and by the way, Most != All. The club I run for my LFGS likes to follow RaW, along with the INAT FAQ, so we dont allow it.

@Alerian: yes I was not gonna bring that up but yes, the Deffrolla thing is "unsolvable" as it is because they never define if ramming and Tank Shock are seperate things, only that ramming is a special kind of tank shock, leaving us to ask "Do all the restrictions and any other special rules that work in a tank shock apply to a Ram or is a Ram something that needs specific mention?" How they didnt catch that one is beyond me (I mean, I know none of the Devs play Dark Eldar but SOMEONE must play orks!)

Edit: No I cant spell. Leave me alone ;(

Better example:

Just about no tournament in the world will allow you to refuse to reroll the damage result of a venerable dreadnought, even though it says that your opponent may only "ask" you to reroll it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Better example:

Just about no tournament in the world will allow you to refuse to reroll the damage result of a venerable dreadnought, even though it says that your opponent may only "ask" you to reroll it.

We do Only ones you cant refuse are the Space Wolf ones cause they are Dead 'Ard!

You opponent can always refuse to roll the dice. Same way as he can refuse to remove casualties. Or refuse to assault the unit he shot at. In each case you call "Judge" and get him permab& from the tournament, or in a friendly game you show them why they still make the rulebook A4 Hardback and 300+ Pages

Unless of course both players agree that he can refuse to do such things, in which case its a moot point

Even if you want to play rules as intended, why would your gun overheating have the same effect as it being shot at full power towards you? It just doesn't make sense.
Either way you look at it, it should not be AP 2.

I agree.

Yeah, the gun's AP2, but you can save against Gets Hot! with flak armor. Ignoring Feel no Pain would make no sense.

its simple you get an armour save so you get feel no pain.
job jobbed next!!

Gwar! wrote:

DiscipleofCaliban wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And as I said, RaI has no bearing on how 40k is played, only RaW

Not true.

Case in point: Most tournaments and game shops allow the use of deffrollas (sp?) against vehicles instead of the ram rule with its armor 14 value, which is especially good against land raiders.

Now, this is not legal in RAW, since the deffrolla is used in a tank shock, and in the tank shock rules it specifically states that if you come within one inch of an enemy vehicle and DONT ram it, you must stop your vehicle. (If Im not mistaken, my BRB is on lend).

Also, going back to one of your statements Gwar, if Im not mistaken, which Im not, you stated that essentially any list is legal as long as your local game shops allow it. The same can be said in RaW vs RaI. Some people can be forgiving, or others can be complete tools and deny people the fun of playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

Yes that it is. However, this is a Rules Debate forum.

When asking "Can I do X" you follow the Rules. The assumption is people are asking Rules questions about the Actual rules.

While I do like to point out that you can in effect do whatever the hell you want, in a rules debate about the core rules, you stick to the core rules, not some imagined Rules as Intended (because unless Alessio Cavatore come to me personally and delivers in writing not only what he intended the rule to do but also a 300 page thesis on why he cant bloody write clearly), it holds no water.

The Question "Does Gets Hot! Allow Feel No Pain" is, Rules as Written, Yes. Rules as Intended don't come into play (unless Alessio Cavatore says otherwise, and even then it'll still need an official errata)

List legality has nothing to do with Rules as Written. There isn't a list in the Main Rulebook that says "These Lists are the only legal lists". there are Summery Pages yes, but considering that they are gonna be outdated pretty soon (2 of them are come May) they again don't really mean much.

The Deffrola thing is because Games workshop are too bloody Lazy to update their codex's between game editions so its an incompatibility between a 4th edition codex and the 5th edition ruleset. In that case the only solution IS to discuss with your opponent how to handle it. They even cover it in the rulebook as what to do if it happens.

So, no, Rules as Intended have no bearing on how 40k should be played, but as everything individuals can elect to modify or throw out whatever they want.

Oh and by the way, Most != All. The club I run for my LFGS likes to follow RaW, along with the INAT FAQ, so we dont allow it.

@Alerian: yes I was not gonna bring that up but yes, the Deffrolla thing is "unsolvable" as it is because they never define if ramming and Tank Shock are seperate things, only that ramming is a special kind of tank shock, leaving us to ask "Do all the restrictions and any other special rules that work in a tank shock apply to a Ram or is a Ram something that needs specific mention?" How they didnt catch that one is beyond me (I mean, I know none of the Devs play Dark Eldar but SOMEONE must play orks!)

Edit: No I cant spell. Leave me alone ;(

Touche sir, Touche.

Thanks for keeping this forum on topic.