11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
Just a question on the speciteal abilities of the SAG. If I roll a double or an 11 with the SAG, does this attack have to roll scatter? In other words, does this negate the need to scatter. I've played two games against marines with a vinicator, both games with 2 Big Meks with SAGs and have rolled the strength and then rolled for scatter and watched my 11's and 12's scatter painfully far away. Am I playing this correctly or should my opponent be crying over the loss of his strength 10 pieplate of orky death?
8471
Post by: olympia
From the ork codex: "Roll 2d6 to determine its Strength after placing the template but before rolling the scatter dice. If a double (or an 11) is rolled for the gun's Strength, consult the chart below."
Bzzzap: "Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10. The gun may not fire next turn."
So no, you do not roll scatter for a Bzzzap result. Of course, many will disagree including, I believe, the INAT FAQ folks.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
That makes sense to me as the other effects seem to lean towards no scatter. Zoink places the Mek in base contact with the target as if he had assaulted, Oops lets your opponent choose who gets hit, these seem to imply there is no scatter rolls after a double or 11.
6769
Post by: Tri
... not sure why it wouldn't effect scatter...
1)place the large blast over a unit
2)Roll 2d6 for strenth
3)Check for doubles ..ect and follow rules
4)(if a shot is fired)Roll for scatter using 2d6+scatter die
5)roll wounds
6)roll saves
7)remove dead models
in the case of 5,6 str rolls you still scatter as you're still using the template ... and hits on a 1/3rd is stardard ork shooting =P
... Oops also scatters ... your opponent only places template, the dice gods works out where its gonna stop
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
That was my initial feeling as well, however what are the chances of a 5,6 str blast scattering the template hole directly over a model? This seems nearly impossible. I will admit that scatter seems reasonable under str's 2,2 3,3 4,4 and 6,6. Under 5,5 and 5,6 scatter makes no sense what so ever. With 5,5 it states "Immediately place the Mek in base contact with the target, and treat him as if he had initiated an assault that turn." If I treat him as assaulting, then he can't scatter. And as stated above with 5,6 why scatter to only remotely hit a model. They might as well have said if that tiny hole ends up over a model the ork player wins the game. I sound a little upset, but I don't mean to. I understand orks have poor BS, that is made up for with the amount of shooting they are allowed to do. As a really new ork player I want to understand how the special rules work. I just can't get my head around what GW intended with the SAG, one of the few low AP weapons with a possible high strength. I have played 2 games, annihilation rules, 2 Big Meks both with SAG's and the most that they accomplished was to glance a Vindicator once. This seems a great deal worse than 1/3 shooting. It makes sense to me that unless you roll doubles or 11's you take the strength you roll, roll for scatter and on with the game. If you do roll a double or 11 then you go to the chart and follow the results there bypassing the scatter rule for the chart result.
8471
Post by: olympia
The ork codex directs you to consult the chart and thus apply the result before rolling scatter. There are innumerable examples of codices overriding the BRB in this game; this too is one of them.
60
Post by: yakface
olympia wrote:The ork codex directs you to consult the chart and thus apply the result before rolling scatter. There are innumerable examples of codices overriding the BRB in this game; this too is one of them.
But there is nothing in the codex rules that contradicts continuing on with the shooting process after rolling on the misfire table, and in fact it is absolutely required in many cases.
We can all agree that the misfire roll occurs before rolling 'to hit' (scatter) with the weapon (since the rules specify as much). The problem is, after the misfire occurs, there is nothing saying that you don't return to the normal rules for shooting from that point forwards. I assume that if you roll the mishap that fires at the closest unit or that allows the enemy to fire the gun you still roll to see if it hits (scatters), correct?
If not, why not? You surely continue on with the rest of the shooting steps including rolling 'to wound' and 'casualty removal' so why would you choose to skip the roll 'to hit' when nothing in the rules says you do?
Obviously some mishaps no longer follow the rules for shooting, such as the one that launches the Mek into combat, but for any mishap that can follow the rules for shooting, you must follow all the applicable steps, including rolling 'to hit'.
3643
Post by: budro
Phil Kellly told me at Baltimore Games Day that you do not roll for scatter after rolling on the mishap table. I was very clear in my question and he was very clear in his answer.
No, you only do what the chart tells you to do and nothing else. No rolling for scatter.
But since that's only word of mouth, cest la vie... 
8471
Post by: olympia
budro wrote:Phil Kellly told me at Baltimore Games Day that you do not roll for scatter after rolling on the mishap table. I was very clear in my question and he was very clear in his answer.
No, you only do what the chart tells you to do and nothing else. No rolling for scatter.
But since that's only word of mouth, cest la vie...
Exactly. Why would one even consider rolling scatter after being directed to consult the mishap table? There's nothing there that demands you "then roll" scatter, and if rolling scatter was implied then that is surely negated by the text which directs a player to consult the table before rolling scatter. I wouldn't roll scatter on anyof the mishaps on the table.
5662
Post by: Boss Ardnutz
At the very least there is a strong RAW argument against rolling scatter for 5,6. Of all the 'possibly scattering' results on the table, it actually contains specific instructions on how to work out the hits - which is what you need scatter for. The other results (like 6,6) say things like "any model hit this turn" which can be interpreted as requiring scatter; the 5,6 result specifically says the model under the template hole is hit. Since we haven't rolled scatter yet, and we already know which model is hit, we would not roll scatter but would simply resolve the hit that we already have.
7690
Post by: utan
This question keeps coming back up. My gut tells me the "hole" doesn't scatter. However, the rules can be interpreted either way.
Has anyone out there posed this question to John Spencer AKA askyourquestion at GW?
8489
Post by: padixon
Yea, Phil Kelly said once you roll as special affect from the mishap table then all normal shooting stops there. And then you consult the Chart to see what happens. Again, this is word of mouth as well. But it does even make sense even from a RAW point of view.
10335
Post by: Razerous
I can see what Yak is saying about continuing with the standard procedure of shooting & I agree with this in general.
The only point I can make is that some of the options differ from one-another in that some specifically mention to "resolve" the shot. (Or the opponent choose the target, which would then (i assume) continue as normal).
Others, I see as more of a replacement effect, specifically Bzzap & Raargh as they give instructions as to what happens next. This is happening before you roll scatter so there-for this takes prescidence.
What do yee think?
10296
Post by: Casper
I think we all agree on what happens with Non doubles or 11's.
1,1 Boom: No need for scater Mek dies
2,2 Oops: Opponent picks target - potential scatter
3,3 Gah: Nearest unit to intended targed - potential scatter? - I would think would still have the chance to scatter (just from new target)
4,4 Sploosh: Small template used, Str and AP of 6 - potential scatter
5,5 Zoink: Mek placed in base to base like charging - no shot no scatter
5,6 Bzzap: Model under template hit at Str 10, gun cant fire next turn - I would vote that its no longer a blast wepon and therefore wouldn't scatter wounds like normal. I would also say it auto hits the guy underneith the hole (this makes since to me but probably is wrong)
6,6 Raargh: Models hit by gun this turn removed... - potential scatter
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
olympia wrote:Why would one even consider rolling scatter after being directed to consult the mishap table? There's nothing there that demands you "then roll" scatter, and if rolling scatter was implied then that is surely negated by the text which directs a player to consult the table before rolling scatter. I wouldn't roll scatter on anyof the mishaps on the table.
Because you aren't told to forego the remainder of the steps in shooting.
To quote the rule exactly as you typed it:
"Roll 2d6 to determine its Strength after placing the template but before rolling the scatter dice. If a double (or an 11) is rolled for the gun's Strength, consult the chart below."
Granted, it does not say to continue on to roll scatter... but it doesn't HAVE to. You follow the normal shooting procedures unless told otherwise. You can't break a basic rule of the game unless you're specifically told that you CAN (should, must, etc.).
As a result, you consult the chart, then roll scatter.
if you get the power that teleports the Mek, of course, you do not scatter... because he's treated as having charged into combat... and you don't roll scatter for assaulting (plus, a Mek is not a blast template).
Eric
60
Post by: yakface
Casper wrote:
5,6 Bzzap: Model under template hit at Str 10, gun cant fire next turn - I would vote that its no longer a blast wepon and therefore wouldn't scatter wounds like normal. I would also say it auto hits the guy underneith the hole (this makes since to me but probably is wrong).
Ummm, where does it say it is no longer a blast weapon. Actually on the contrary the rule says:
"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10."
If you're not using the blast marker you certainly wouldn't have the center 'hole' to tell who is hit.
The thing is, this is a shooting weapon that must follow the normal rules for shooting if possible. The rule I quoted above does not in the slightest say that you ignore the normal 'to hit' (scatter) roll. the only thing it does is modify the normal blast rules so that only the model under the hole is hit (as opposed to any model under the blast as normal) and that the shot is Strength 10.
That's it. You're still using the AP2 of the weapon, you're still rolling 'to wound' for the model under the center hole and you're still using the normal casualty removal rules for shooting.
So under what pretense can you choose to ignore the roll 'to hit'? There absolutely isn't any basis in the rules to do so. And if you claim that you don't use the 'to hit' (scatter) roll for this mishap, then there isn't any reason you shouldn't be ignoring the 'to hit' (scatter) roll for the rest of the mishap results. And if you're ignoring the 'to hit' (scatter) roll, then your opponent should also be able to ignore the AP of the weapon, etc.
I know that Phil Kelly mentioned that when he wrote it he didn't mean for that result to scatter, but the fact is the way he did write it, it does scatter. If he wants to change the rule via a FAQ, then he certainly can but until that time comes the RAW most certainly dictate that the 'to hit' (scatter) roll needs to be taken if the rules allow, and they most certainly do in this situation.
10866
Post by: orky1
Codex>than BRB. After you determine the str, and you get one of the results that would apply to the chart that's the end of the shooting. No more rolling for scatter.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
We have to return to the normal sequence of shooting. We might take a detour (the mishap table) but we must return to the sequence. Why? Because if we want to wound anthing and remove any casualties we have to.
Where do we return to the sequence? It seems logical to me to return where we left off. We left right before the scatter roll.
It would be just a logical to say "let's return right after the wounding part. So now I take a save for aaaaaaallllllll the wounded model. Hey! Nobody is wounded. Lucky me."
We pick up where we left off. It is the only way for the game to continue at all.
60
Post by: yakface
orky1 wrote:Codex>than BRB. After you determine the str, and you get one of the results that would apply to the chart that's the end of the shooting. No more rolling for scatter.
Sigh. . .And what's the basis for that? Just saying "codex>rulebook" doesn't mean anything. The codex has to actually SPECIFY or CONTRADICT the basic rules for you to be able to ignore them.
NOTHING in the mishap results indicates that you don't continue on with the normal results for shooting. Because I hate to tell you, but the mishap rules are not complete to themselves. They have no instructions on rolling to wound, casualty removal etc. So if: "codex>rulebook" is your answer then as your opponent I'm just not going to remove any models because there aren't any casualty removal rules in the Shokk Attack Gun rules.
This whole "codex>rulebook" thing has become some sort of generic response for people who don't actually want to read what the rules actually say to do.
10866
Post by: orky1
I don't have the codex right in front of me being at work, but it states something to the effect that if you get doubles or 5,6 then refer to the chart below. End of Sentence. When you're referring to the chart it doesn't say roll scatter then apply the result. It's pretty self explanatory. Is that less generic? I'll do some more reading when I get home if that will help.
60
Post by: yakface
orky1 wrote:I don't have the codex right in front of me being at work, but it states something to the effect that if you get doubles or 5,6 then refer to the chart below. End of Sentence. When you're referring to the chart it doesn't say roll scatter then apply the result. It's pretty self explanatory. Is that less generic? I'll do some more reading when I get home if that will help.
Yes, and those results modify the Shokk Attack Guns normal firing, but they don't stop it from following the rules for firing, cause if they do, again there are no rules for causing wounds or casualty removal either. So you can't have it both ways. If the Shokk Attack Gun mishap rules are completely self-contained then for most of 'em you're not actually going to get to cause any wounds because there are no rules for casualty removal.
All the SAG rules say is:
"If a double (or an 11) is rolled for the gun's Strength, consult the chart below."
Nothing at all in that sentence indicates that the gun no longer follows the normal rules for shooting, just that you also have to follow the rules presented for the mishap.
And as I've pointed out several times now you actually have to keep following the rules for shooting where applicable or else the whole thing falls completely apart.
8471
Post by: olympia
yakface wrote:orky1 wrote:Codex>than BRB. After you determine the str, and you get one of the results that would apply to the chart that's the end of the shooting. No more rolling for scatter.
Sigh. . .And what's the basis for that? Just saying "codex>rulebook" doesn't mean anything. The codex has to actually SPECIFY or CONTRADICT the basic rules for you to be able to ignore them.
NOTHING in the mishap results indicates that you don't continue on with the normal results for shooting. Because I hate to tell you, but the mishap rules are not complete to themselves. They have no instructions on rolling to wound, casualty removal etc. So if: "codex>rulebook" is your answer then as your opponent I'm just not going to remove any models because there aren't any casualty removal rules in the Shokk Attack Gun rules.
This whole "codex>rulebook" thing has become some sort of generic response for people who don't actually want to read what the rules actually say to do.
Intelligent people can read the rules and arrive at differing conclusions yakface. For me and evidently a few others it is specific enough. It says consult the mishap table before rolling scatter. Take bzzap, for example, consulting the chart before rolling scatter die reveals that the model under the hole is hit. Seems clear enough; at this point resuming the scheduled progam, i.e. the "shooting process," is moot.
Also, this is marginally related, but why Yakface, did the INAT FAQ determine that you do not subtract BS from a big bomm attack? Is it because the big bomm does not occur in the shooting phase?
1309
Post by: Lordhat
I agree 100% with Yak. 'Consult the chart below' is NOT the same thing as 'Replace the shooting process according to the chart below'. Unless instructed to by a special rule, you must ALWAYS use all the rules given to resolve a situation, be it movement, assault, shooting, or deployment. This situation is no different. BREAK NO RULE
8471
Post by: olympia
I'd also note that according to your interpretation yakface, you could substitute "after rolling the scatter die" for "before rolling the scatter die" and it wouldn't make a difference regarding the operation of the mishap table. I'd hope we would agree that using "after" or "before" should result in different results.
10335
Post by: Razerous
The only reason I think some of the options are instigated immedietly is due to a few of the options specifying to resolve the attack.. so in relation to those insturctions, other options simply have more direct -this happpens- effects.. rather than resolving the attack as normal.
10296
Post by: Casper
Yak, I agree with your arguement 99.9% on this one...
However im still a bit confused with Bzzap (5,6). The way I interpreted it was that since the model under the hole is hit, that in fact it is hit (ergo no need to scatter and why i refered to it not as a blast wep) and since no other model is affected that you would just roll to wound as normal. I guess I just interpreted it wrong.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I seem to have stepped in it with the question. I would love to follow the brb on the shooting phase if the brb made sense and I have read both book and codex. It breaks down like this for me: follow the brb, roll for scatter and 5,5 & 5,6 don't make sense. Don't roll for scatter and they all make sense. As I stated above you can't scatter a assault and the chance of scattering the template directly over a model is practically nill. Is it possible yes, but not very. The codex is indeed ambiguous and I would have thought that this would be addressed in a GW FAQ, but it has not. I did mean to cause such a caustic debate over what I thought would be a simple answer.
8471
Post by: olympia
dawgofwagh wrote:I seem to have stepped in it with the question. I would love to follow the brb on the shooting phase if the brb made sense and I have read both book and codex. It breaks down like this for me: follow the brb, roll for scatter and 5,5 & 5,6 don't make sense. Don't roll for scatter and they all make sense. As I stated above you can't scatter a assault and the chance of scattering the template directly over a model is practically nill. Is it possible yes, but not very. The codex is indeed ambiguous and I would have thought that this would be addressed in a GW FAQ, but it has not. I did mean to cause such a caustic debate over what I thought would be a simple answer.
Ha! rookie! You want caustic go hunt down all the deff rolla threads or the painboyz/ IC threads. As with the "zoink" result (assault) the codex states that no shot is fired so it's not an issue.
7849
Post by: Webbe
I agree with Yak.
Still the 5, 6 result is troublesome. It says "the model under the template hole is hit", not any model or something similar.
If it scatters there can very well be two models under the template hole, the rules say nothing about that.
This seem to indicate that a 5, 6 result is not meant to scatter.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
olympia wrote:I'd also note that according to your interpretation yakface, you could substitute "after rolling the scatter die" for "before rolling the scatter die" and it wouldn't make a difference regarding the operation of the mishap table. I'd hope we would agree that using "after" or "before" should result in different results.
For a number of the mishap results, it does matter that you consult the table before. See, e.g., "Mek teleports into Close combat" or "Oops" or "Use small blast marker."
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
If that is so why does 5,6 get to be special? If we have to follow the scatter rule why not for 5,6? Again it just doesn't make sense. 1,1 says no shot fired, mek dead - no scatter, 2,2 says your opponent gets to place the template - yea or nay for scatter, 3,3 place template on nearest to target - again yea or nay, 4,4 use small template - yea or nay, 5,5 mek fired into an assault with target - can't scatter, 5,6 only model under hole in template hit - scatter? How?, 6,6 remove all models unless vehicle then pen. hit - yea or nay for scatter. 3,3 & 4,4 both say to resolve attack upon target, however 2,2 does not. 5,5 tells us to assault, 5,6 & 6,6 tell us which models are hit or remove. This seems to tell us what is happening, who gets hit and how to resolve the shot with the exception of 2,2.
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.
10866
Post by: orky1
budro wrote:Phil Kellly told me at Baltimore Games Day that you do not roll for scatter after rolling on the mishap table. I was very clear in my question and he was very clear in his answer.
No, you only do what the chart tells you to do and nothing else. No rolling for scatter.
But since that's only word of mouth, cest la vie...
I'm emailing GW to ask them. If Phil Kelly says it doesn't then I would tend to believe him. I hope to hear from them within a week, and I'll post the reply.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I have sent the same question. Thanks!
60
Post by: yakface
usernamesareannoying wrote:if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.
I'm glad you have decreed it to be so. Unfortunately the rules do not back up your claim in any way, shape or form.
8471
Post by: olympia
yakface wrote:usernamesareannoying wrote:if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.
I'm glad you have decreed it to be so. Unfortunately the rules do not back up your claim in any way, shape or form.
usernamesareannoying's statement was no less categorical than your pronouncements. And specifically with the bzzap result the rules do back him up in some way, shape, or form.
8471
Post by: olympia
Webbe wrote:I agree with Yak.
Still the 5, 6 result is troublesome. It says "the model under the template hole is hit", not any model or something similar.
If it scatters there can very well be two models under the template hole, the rules say nothing about that.
This seem to indicate that a 5, 6 result is not meant to scatter.
This is a great point Webbe. It strongly suggests that bzzaps does not scatter. "The model"...only when the template is placed before the scatter is there the exclusive possibility that one model will be under the hole. So if the bzzap does indeed scatter what happens if two models are partially under the hole?
10197
Post by: frameshift
There is definitely inconsistent word usage across the entries. The Main rule for the gun presents the ordering of events. "Roll 2D6 to determine its strength after placing the template but before rolling scatter dice. If a double... consult the chart below."
So the default sequence is:
1. Place large blast template.
2. Roll 2D6 for Strength.
2.a. Check chart for rolling doubles.
3. Roll Scatter dice.
4. Continue with shooting as normal (roll to wound, apply saves, remove casualties).
It stands to reason that by consulting the chart below we *might* find exceptions to this default sequence.
2,2 states "the opponent may choose the target of the shokk attack gun this turn." Says nothing about altering the rest of the shooting sequence.
3,3 says "resolve this shot...", likewise 4,4 uses "resolve the attack upon the target, but use the small template." This is specifically emphasizing that you follow the ordinary shooting sequence.
6,6 says "any model hit by the gun..." and so says nothing about altering the normal shooting sequence.
Those are all inconsistent wordings that all seem to agree with the idea that you will still be rolling to hit (i.e.:scatter) after placing the template just as normal. Why they add special emphasis to 3,3 and 4,4 is something I don't understand.
5,6 is a different beast, though. It says "Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is strength 10." It doesn't say that the model under the template after it scatters is hit, it says "the model under the template is hit." I read this as saying that you get a hit on the model you placed under the hole. You have gotten this hit as part of 2.a. in the sequence, before you even get to 3. There's nothing to roll scatter for, then, just like there's nothing to roll scatter for when you don't take a shot (as in 1,1 and 5,5).
I dunno, I can see the other side, but it doesn't seem to follow the workflow as set up by the main rule for the gun.
60
Post by: yakface
olympia wrote:yakface wrote:usernamesareannoying wrote:if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.
I'm glad you have decreed it to be so. Unfortunately the rules do not back up your claim in any way, shape or form.
usernamesareannoying's statement was no less categorical than your pronouncements. And specifically with the bzzap result the rules do back him up in some way, shape, or form.
That is completely untrue. I've explained in a logical way several times now how the rules support my position. He did not.
I'll state the argument yet again which has yet to be refuted:
The Shokk Attack Gun is a shooting weapon and shooting weapons follow the normal steps for shooting (including rolling to hit) unless specified otherwise.
Nothing in the 5,6 result for the SAG specifically says that no 'to hit' roll is made, therefore since it is possible to resolve the 5,6 misfire result while still following the normal rules for shooting (including the 'to hit' roll), then we must.
5662
Post by: Boss Ardnutz
Nonsense.
You are not normally this blindly dogmatic.... also not usually this obviously wrong.
It took me a lot of reading to see how anyone could argue that any of the table results scatter. I can now see that but the same argument must result in 5,6 not scattering.
After rolling a table result, you return to the usual shooting rules at an appropriate point.
Shooting rules require you to scatter in order to find out who is hit.
5,6 tells you who is hit. Therefore the appropriate point to return to the usual shooting rules is the bit where you roll to wound. You already know who is hit as the table has already told you.
Therefore it is wrong to scatter a 5,6 result.
8471
Post by: olympia
yakface wrote:
That is completely untrue. I've explained in a logical way several times now how the rules support my position. He did not.
I'll state the argument yet again which has yet to be refuted:
The Shokk Attack Gun is a shooting weapon and shooting weapons follow the normal steps for shooting (including rolling to hit) unless specified otherwise.
Nothing in the 5,6 result for the SAG specifically says that no 'to hit' roll is made, therefore since it is possible to resolve the 5,6 misfire result while still following the normal rules for shooting (including the 'to hit' roll), then we must.
I would say that your position as applied to bzzap is refutable. It is not possible to resolve the bzzap result as you describe if you scatter and the template hole partially covers two models. Thus the bzzap result meets both of your conditions: 1) it specifies otherwise by telling you "only the model under the temlpate hole is hit"--although the language here is not as clear as we would hope and 2) if scattered it potentially leads to a result that cannot be resolved using the normal rules for shooting--the mishap tells you one model is hit but the scatter hits two models.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
Well I discussed this running debate with my vindicator friend and we have come to this conclusion. I will also lay this out in a logical way, with due respect to Yakface, and see what everyone thinks. The brb does lay out the rules for shooting and they are to be followed. The codex lays out the special rules for each race and as such they change some rules in the brb. If this was not the case then you couldn't have Space Wolf Leman Russes nor Blood Angel Death Company nor Necron We'll Be Back. The SAG follows all brb shooting rules unless you roll doubles or 5,6 then you must, and I quote, "Consult the chart below." Yakface says that no where does it say not to follow the scatter rule but in fact it does, here is how. 1,1 says "no shot fired" in the description. no shot - no scatter, this seems a no brainer. 2,2 states the opponent may choose the target. The word target does not imply wounding and as such you must decide who gets hit - i.e. roll for scatter. 3,3 & 4,4 state "resolve this shot" - meaning go back to the brb and roll for scatter. 5,5 says the same as 1,1 no shot is fired. 5,6 tells us the model under the hole is hit - no scatter because we are told already who is hit. 6,6 tells us "any model hit". we don't know who is hit and therefore must roll for scatter. We only not roll for scatter when we have been instructed not - "not shot fired" & "only the model under the template hole is hit". In all others we are either told to resolve the shot or find out who was hit. I think this is in the spirit of the codex and the logical interpretation of the chart.
6769
Post by: Tri
?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.
no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).
for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"
10197
Post by: frameshift
Tri wrote:?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.
no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).
for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"
It doesn't have to say the template doesn't scatter because it has already told us who is hit, before there is ever a chance to scatter. The text takes effect in between targeting and rolling to scatter, not after scattering.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I'm not sure what there is to debate about "only the model under the template hole is hit". This is a straight forward statement. You cannot scatter as you are already told who was hit with the blast. It does not state "resolve the shot" nor does it say anything about choosing a target or any model hit. Your argument does not follow a logical pattern. You cannot say 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is mortal 3. Therefore Socrates is a man. That is your argument. The fact that you are told who is hit superceeds any other rules to find who was hit. Think of it as a str 10 attack on a toughness 4 model. There is no saving throw as the attack is twice the toughness. Here there is no scatter as the str roll has determined who was hit.
8471
Post by: olympia
Tri wrote:?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.
no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).
for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"
So what happens if the 5/6 scatters and two models are partially under the template hole? anyone? anyone? Bueller?
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
Only a model under the template hole is hit. There doesn't seem to be an accommodation for models partially under the hole. The blast may be too focused to hurt anything it only partially hits.
If you really want a nice, RAW, literal bit of nonsense, look at the last line of the 6,6 result. 'Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.' There is nothing about vehicles needing to be under the template or anything else... so those steps should be skipped. Every vehicle takes a penetrating hit!
8471
Post by: olympia
Gitzbitah wrote:Only a model under the template hole is hit. There doesn't seem to be an accommodation for models partially under the hole. The blast may be too focused to hurt anything it only partially hits.
If you really want a nice, RAW, literal bit of nonsense, look at the last line of the 6,6 result. 'Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.' There is nothing about vehicles needing to be under the template or anything else... so those steps should be skipped. Every vehicle takes a penetrating hit!
Nice reducto ad absurdum [sic]! Excellent, and because every model in 40k is too big to fit entirely under the template hole nothing is hit at all! So a 5,6 results in no hits. Jesuits would be envious of this casuistry.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I'm glad there is still a bit of absurdity out there!  It renews my faith in the human race.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
My logic is faulty, but my point is still a solid one. Games Workshop doesn't write with the economy of language being sought in this thread. They may say you shouldn't roll for scatter through implication and variations in wording. When you ask yourself if they meant that, or if they were just trying to keep the writing interesting, there isn't a clear answer. My money is on incompetence and typos over an intentional deadly accuracy for this weapon.
The other weapon descriptions only enumerate the parts that change from the basic stat line. None of them bother telling you to use the large blast template. Only the results that alter the AP list it. They assume you'll apply the existing rules to fill in the gaps. Because they chose to write this section of the rules in a patchwork fashion, we must reasonably assume that any absence should be filled in with the normal rules.
Well, that was more productive... but much less fun than my last post.
6769
Post by: Tri
olympia wrote:Tri wrote:?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.
no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).
for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"
So what happens if the 5/6 scatters and two models are partially under the template hole? anyone? anyone? Bueller?
would have to be an amazing scatter to get two models under the hole (not bases, models). I think, in that even they would both be hit but its not likely to see that happening.
8471
Post by: olympia
Tri wrote:olympia wrote:
So what happens if the 5/6 scatters and two models are partially under the template hole? anyone? anyone? Bueller?
would have to be an amazing scatter to get two models under the hole (not bases, models). I think, in that even they would both be hit but its not likely to see that happening.
What basis do you have for saying that both would be hit when the codex tells you only one can be hit? We've all played games where improbable rolls happen--it's one of the things that makes the game fun. Getting two models partially under the template is easier than you think. For example, take two rhinos and put them hull to hull as one might do to block LOS. If this happened in a game you would have both rhinos take hits. However, the codex says you only hit "the model" under the template hole. What is allowing you to hit two? the BRB you say? No, because the codex overrules that and the codex states you hit one. So you should apply occham's razor which says that given two options, choose the one the one that is parsimonious---NO scatter. In fact, as I already pointed out, when you first place the template you can only cover one model with the template hole; this is the only time this state is guaranteed. Anyone else want to explain what happens when two models are hit by a 5,6 result? anyone? No? Silence is acquiescence.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
Yakface already pointed out the simplest solution. The less variation from the BRB, the simpler a solution. I'm a little confused by your posts, Olympia. It looks like you want to start a logical argument from the jargon, but then you throw out inflammatory taunts. Silence is acquiescence? There's no logic in that statement. I assume you wish to engage in a logical debate rather than trolling up a flame war. Here's my logical take on it.
My contention is that the Shokk results only list the variations from standard operation. Therefore anything not listed in the result description falls back on the basic rules of the weapon. This means that 5,6 and 12 would scatter because nothing in them alters the Ordnance weapon aspect of the SAG's profile.
As to how to determine the hits for 5,6, I suspect any models under it should be hit. I do not possess a Necron codex, but they seem to have a similar weapon. Does anyone know how they handle the models under the hole in the template? I suggest we use the behavior of that weapon as our model for determining hits for a result of 5,6.
8471
Post by: olympia
Gitzbitah,
So your position is that a bzzap result which states "ONLY THE MODEL under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10" [emphasis mine] could hit two models. I just don't see how that is tenable. Your response is, "Because that is what best conforms to the BRB." But of course that contradicts the ork codex--assuming you understand "ONLY THE MODEL" to mean one model. What happens when a codex contradicts the BRB (turbo-boost scout move anyone?)? The codex trumps it.
edit: at least you don't endorse the position that it's an unlikely event so just ignore it and hope it doesn't come up.
10335
Post by: Razerous
Why cant we follow the rules for each option on the SAG (random) table.. all the options tell you to do somthing.
Whether that be resolve the attack with a modifyed stat line, the opponents picks a target, the mek boy dies etc.
Every options up untill the last two tells you exactly what to do so why, therefore, is there such confusion on the last two options.
If you follow options 1-5 to the letter why not follow the last two in the same way?
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
I'm not sure how to handle 5,6. That's why I'm asking for what the Necron codex says we should do for a weapon that uses the hole of a large template.
The only other example I can think of is a blast of some sort against a vehicle, but I can't recall what you do in that situation when the hole does not completely cover the hull.
How do these two situations function? We should be able to make a reasonable guess as to the hit determination from them.
@ Razerous- Actually, the table is only explicit about exceptions. The result which allows your opponent to resolve the shot does not bother telling you what the AP or strength is. They tend to tell you what works differently. We're assumed to use the standard profile except where the results modify it.
6769
Post by: Tri
Olympia it is an unlikely event. i don't argue it won't come up or ignore it but i it doesn't change my view.
"only the model under the template hole is hit"
where does it say that the template stays still? no where.
what do we do if a codex doesn't have answer? fall back to the BGB.
what happens to template weapons? they scatter 2D6-BS. If a hit is roll the template stays where it is.
what if the hole scatters over two models? Amazing luck you hit both.
But the codex say "ONLY THE MODEL under the template hole is hit"? OK we'll play it your way. Still nothing to stop it scattering ... oh look it scatter over 2 models well RAW you only hurt one of them.
was going to work out the chances of this happening before realising how rare it would be. Roll for strength and scatter odds are 4/108 then add that you might land on 2 models and the odds the become maddeningly low because ...
A) 2 models must be close enough to fit under the hole B) it must scatter that distance
C) they must be just the right distance to be scatter on to.
So unless you're shooting into a unit of 50 conscript all base to base its almost never going to come up ... if your shooting at a rhino next to another rhino you must scatter perfectly to cover both (top down they're not rectangles they've vents sticking out the sides) again highly unlikely to happen.
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
it just seemed odd that they would actually expect anything to ever be directly under the hole after a scatter but after thinking about it i guess its the same for a WHFB stone thrower so they do expect it to scatter and the hole to land on someone. granted in 40k that seems much less likely.
3643
Post by: budro
You know why it seems confusing? Because it's poorly written. It's not supposed to be poorly written but gamers read it and say,"what about scatter? do we still scatter?" and others say, "why wouldn't you scatter?"
It doesn't make sense when you apply scatter rolls to the results of the table because you're not supposed to. Granted by a RAW reading you do because it doesn't explictly tell you not to. Which is why I asked the author of the book. And he said, "Of course not," and looked at me like I was crazy for asking.
Personally when I read the rules for it, it never occured to me that you would roll for scatter because it never tells you to roll for scatter. The obvious counter to that is that it also never tells you to roll to wound either. Which is a straw-man argument IMO. Shooting is seperate from wounding. It doesn't have to tell you how to wound because the core rulebook already tells you that. The codex specific rules of the SAG misfire tells you what happens, who is hit, the S of the hit, the AP of the hit. Rolling on the misfire chart is a break from the normal shooting sequence - you don't go back to the shooting sequence after rolling on the table, you go to hits and wounds.
It really needs to be FAQ'd. But it probably won't ever be.
7849
Post by: Webbe
budro wrote:Shooting is seperate from wounding. It doesn't have to tell you how to wound because the core rulebook already tells you that. The codex specific rules of the SAG misfire tells you what happens, who is hit, the S of the hit, the AP of the hit. Rolling on the misfire chart is a break from the normal shooting sequence - you don't go back to the shooting sequence after rolling on the table, you go to hits and wounds.
That is wrong.
Check the box on page 15 of the rulebook.
It reads " THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE"
Wounding, saving and removing casualties are as much part of the shooting sequence as rolling to hit.
3643
Post by: budro
whatever: my point still stands - you don't go back to the "to hit" portion of the shooting sequence once you've already determined whar/where the the shot landed and who got hit. You go on to wounds. Which we know how to do because we know the S and AP of the hits.
6769
Post by: Tri
budro wrote:You know why it seems confusing? Because it's poorly written. It's not supposed to be poorly written but gamers read it and say,"what about scatter? do we still scatter?" and others say, "why wouldn't you scatter?"
It doesn't make sense when you apply scatter rolls to the results of the table because you're not supposed to. Granted by a RAW reading you do because it doesn't explictly tell you not to. (A)Which is why I asked the author of the book. And he said, "Of course not," and looked at me like I was crazy for asking.(A)
(B)Personally when I read the rules for it, it never occured to me that you would roll for scatter because it never tells you to roll for scatter. The obvious counter to that is that it also never tells you to roll to wound either.(B) Which is a straw-man argument IMO. Shooting is seperate from wounding. It doesn't have to tell you how to wound because the core rulebook already tells you that. The codex specific rules of the SAG misfire tells you what happens, who is hit, the S of the hit, the AP of the hit. Rolling on the misfire chart is a break from the normal shooting sequence - you don't go back to the shooting sequence after rolling on the table, you go to hits and wounds.
(---------second post--------------)
whatever: my point still stands - (C)you don't go back to the "to hit" portion of the shooting sequence once you've already determined whar/where the the shot landed and who got hit (C). You go on to wounds. Which we know how to do because we know the S and AP of the hits.
A) Well thats great but he didn't write it down.
B) BGB tell us how to play unless the codex says differently ... in the '5,6 Bzzap' case we are told that unlike normal (for templates) only the model under the hole is hit. nothing more. All template scatter, so that large blast we're holding will scatter.
C) We never got to the hit section we are currently working out the strength.
Let me demenstrate ...first lets order the rule ...
"Roll 2d6 to determine its strength after placing the template but before rolling for scatter"
1)place template
2)roll for strenth
3)roll for scatter
"If a double (or 11) is rolled for the guns strenth, consult the chart below"
... ok got to tweak the order then ...
1)place template
2)roll for strenth
2.5)double or 11 consult the chart
3)roll for scatter
done ... and if you're going to ask why the 5,5 zoink doesn't scatter the big mek? thats easy the template would still scatter but no shots were fired.
8471
Post by: olympia
Tri wrote:
B) BGB tell us how to play unless the codex says differently ... in the '5,6 Bzzap' case we are told that unlike normal (for templates) only the model under the hole is hit. nothing more. All template scatter, so that large blast we're holding will scatter.
...unless the Bzzap scatter hits two models in which case, according to you, we ignore the codex and just make things up--both are hit or one is hit (who chooses?), etc. Of course, if we assume the bzzap does not scatter "ONLY THE MODEL" then none of these problems arise.
6769
Post by: Tri
or we listen to you and ignore "...rolling for scatter" in the codex
... also the person allocating the wound chooses where they go so RAW it would matter that way ...
8471
Post by: olympia
Tri wrote:or we listen to you and ignore "...rolling for scatter" in the codex
... also the person allocating the wound chooses where they go so RAW it would matter that way ...
Well the codex says "before rolling for scatter." You left out the "before"--it does matter.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
You cant say that 5,5 doesn't scatter because it says no shot fired and then not say 1,1 doesn't scatter for the same reason. I would love to follow the brb if it made sense to follow it. If you read the rule in the Necron codex it says "any model under the hole in the middle of the Ordinance template is hit". Again the word "any" suggests that there is some doubt as to it hitting. 5,6 says, "Only the model under the hole is hit". The only time you have a template hole directly over a model is when you place it and with the roll of 5,6 that is the model than takes a str 10 hit. I still have no idea why there is any discussion on 5,6. The model under the template is hit. It can't be much clearer. Why do you feel the need to scatter when you have already been told that you hit and where the hit takes place. As I stated before the chance of it scattering directly over a model is next to impossible. I think it interesting that so many people state that you must follow the brb. Does the armies you play have any special rules in their codex? Did you have to work out how they work or did you disregard them as the brb didn't tell you how to use them. The brb is the foundation of the game. No argument as to that. We must follow the rules in the brb unless instructed otherwise. As I have stated above the codex does just that. The brb cant give us all of the rules, that is why we have codices. (That and sell more books.  ). If you can show me where I'm wrong, logically, in my thinking as to how the rule works I will gladly change as that is why I posted this question.
6769
Post by: Tri
... ok before rolling for scatter ...
)place template
)roll a 5 & 6 str
)Bzzap only the modle under the hole is hit
)and then roll for scatter ... hit (2/6) it stay put other wise it scatters 2d6-BS
)if 2 models are under the hole when it stops then we enter no mans land ... i say both would be hit, RAW says only one ... who evers hit it doesn't realy matter wounds are placed and removed by the other player
you can complain about it not making sence or what ever but nothing in the Bzzap rules stops the scatter ... in fact none of the effects in that chart stop the scatter they only stop the shot
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
Ok can we agree that 3,3 & 4,4 says resolve the shot? And doesn't this seem to tell you that you continue with the brb rules?
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
Do you plan on scattering 5,5?
60
Post by: yakface
I just wanted to re-post something that muwhe posted in another thread regarding designers making off-hand rulings:
That reminds me ... Last year with the INAT FAQ one of our more controversial rulings revolved around our interpretation of the Lash of Submission.
Phil Kelly was at AdeptiCon. I will start off saying that both Phil and Graham outstanding special guests. Both of them fantastic with our attendees and staff. We ask a number of things of our special guests depending on their role with in GW. Guest judging, playing some games, holding a seminar, etc… and both Phil and Graham handled it all with class.
Phil happened to be on the floor and got called into a Lash of Submission question. He made the call and then proceeded to come over to the main 40K judging table and told us how he called it. Explained his reasoning and was pretty firm about this position. But also was concerned that he was on the same page as the rest of the AdeptiCon rule judges. His call much to my amusement was exactly the way we had called it. So all was good. All the heat, debate, and long hours of discussion on the council to then to be vindicated by one of GW’s lead designers well frankly it felt pretty good.
Sometime after Adepticon, GW updated the Chaos FAQ/Errata and the ruling / position of Lash was completely different . So it was good while it lasted.
I have thought long about that experience. What if Phil Kelly had written the Chaos FAQ instead? Would the GW “Official” word on Lash be different? I think we as fans and players tend to think of the GW Studio as some oracle on high .. that hands down 40K rulings with the certainty of the ten commandments, everything in lock step agreement. When the reality is there is probably as much disagreement and play differences among the studio as there is within the GW community. With 5th edition we are still dealing with books written and influenced by people now long gone from the company ( Andy Chambers, Pete Haines, Gav Thorpe, ) … new faces are in the studio and working on books. All putting their mark on the games we play. But there has not been a consistent language/terminology/guidance across all the works. Jervis’s vision of 40K is greatly different that Andy’s. It has been made clear to me they are not interested in writing rules to support a tourney environment.
I too heard Phil Kelly talk about the 5,6 result not scattering, but I don't think that he understands that how he wrote the rule does not convey that meaning and to make that ruling has implications to all the other misfire rolls that still result in the weapon being fired.
And Olympia:
I understand that there is a small possibility that two (or more) models could fall under the center hole of a scattering blast at which point the rules are not clear. However this situation does not invalidate the basic logic behind following the steps for shooting. The 5,6 result requires the shooting rules to be used to determine if the model is wounded, how armor saves are resolved (with the SAG's AP of 2), and how casualty removal is handled.
There is just no distinction in the rules saying that you skip over the roll 'to hit' and then jump back into the sequence of shooting, because determining who is hit by a blast is not the same thing as rolling 'to hit' with a blast. Yes 5,6 tells us who is hit by the blast (the model under the center hole) but it does not give players the option to ignore the 'to hit' roll.
6769
Post by: Tri
its just very baddly worded ...so is much of the rest of the codex, next you be telling me they didn't mess up the Dakkagun profile by listing 2 conflicting profiles ...
Till you show me some thing that says the scatter stops, it must scatter. But some how i can't see me winning you over ... or you winning me over
edit .... nicely put yakface
8471
Post by: olympia
Tri wrote:... ok before rolling for scatter ...
)place template
)roll a 5 & 6 str
)Bzzap only the modle under the hole is hit
)and then roll for scatter ... hit (2/6) it stay put other wise it scatters 2d6-BS
)if 2 models are under the hole when it stops then we enter no mans land ... i say both would be hit, RAW says only one ... who evers hit it doesn't realy matter wounds are placed and removed by the other player
you can complain about it not making sence or what ever but nothing in the Bzzap rules stops the scatter ... in fact none of the effects in that chart stop the scatter they only stop the shot
Here's the problem. When you get to your fifth step above you are making things up (based on your feel for the rules etc). The codex dictates that only one model can be hit so how have you place yourself in a position that makes you try to reconcile this with two models being hit? The answer is because of faulty interpretation. This is why I referenced occham's razor. You've got two choices: no scatter doesn't require you to make up rules to determine what happens--just follow directions, while scatter requires you to make up rules. Throw out the latter. To sum up, you state "nothing in the bzzap rules stops the scatter." This is where you are wrong. As I've explained scattering allows two models to be hit which cannot happen because ONLY THE MODEL under the template hole is hit.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I will again apologise for how this question has garnered its responses. And in reference to the above I believe you are right. We cannot agree as we both are convinced by our arguements. And thank you Yakface for showing us how even those in the know are often wrong or misguided. As I have discussed both this question and its responses with My friend Vindyboy, we have argeed to settle on "in house rules". We both agree on our interpretation and that is what we will use. I do thank everyone for their input and I hope that the agreeing to disagree does induce any bad feelings.
6769
Post by: Tri
Na don't worry about it, dawgofwagh. Its half the point of YMDC is garner (nice world, must use it more) opions and to try to get RAI. This is, in fact, a very useful thread as there is a problem here.
8471
Post by: olympia
yakface wrote:
There is just no distinction in the rules saying that you skip over the roll 'to hit' and then jump back into the sequence of shooting, because determining who is hit by a blast is not the same thing as rolling 'to hit' with a blast. Yes 5,6 tells us who is hit by the blast (the model under the center hole) but it does not give players the option to ignore the 'to hit' roll.
" When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle." [emphasis mine] p.30 of my black reach rules.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Although I applaud your semantics trap and its brilliant execution , clearly Yakface intended to refer to the scatter roll instead of his ill-quoted "'to hit' roll".
As to the main issue, I'm honestly on the fence. Usually I can see a clear Right/Wrong answer by pure RAW, but the Ork Codex and this bit in particular is wonky enough that I'm kind of stumped. I guess if you put a gun to my head and commanded that I choose one or the other, I'd go with scatter as normal, but this would be worthy of clarification.
8471
Post by: olympia
sourclams wrote:Although I applaud your semantics trap and its brilliant execution ;D, clearly Yakface intended to refer to the scatter roll instead of his ill-quoted "'to hit' roll".
 Unlike the GW writers, Yakface can tell us his intent.
7849
Post by: Webbe
The game has one die with a hit symbol on two of its six sides. When you roll it it's obviously not a "to hit" roll...
Stupid GW!
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Webbe wrote:I agree with Yak.
Still the 5, 6 result is troublesome. It says "the model under the template hole is hit", not any model or something similar.
If it scatters there can very well be two models under the template hole, the rules say nothing about that.
This seem to indicate that a 5, 6 result is not meant to scatter.
I think I am in a similar frame of mind. I agree but find the wording for 5/6 very troubling to the point I can easily be persuaded it doesn't scatter. The "model under the template hole" is that before or after scatter. It cannot be after because you have to do the action of 5/6 first before returning to the normal shooting phase - the more I think about the more the INAT ruling doesn't sit well.
5662
Post by: Boss Ardnutz
That's right, fullheadofhair.
Because we follow the table result before rolling for scatter - and the table result very clearly tells us that the model under the marker hole is hit. At this point we have not scattered, but we already know what is hit.
We could scatter the marker if we want, but we already know which model is hit. This is exactly how the specifics in the codex ("the model...is hit") override the generalities in the rulebook (all that stuff about scattering the marker).
60
Post by: yakface
Boss Ardnutz wrote:That's right, fullheadofhair.
Because we follow the table result before rolling for scatter - and the table result very clearly tells us that the model under the marker hole is hit. At this point we have not scattered, but we already know what is hit.
We could scatter the marker if we want, but we already know which model is hit. This is exactly how the specifics in the codex ("the model...is hit") override the generalities in the rulebook (all that stuff about scattering the marker).
That isn't what the rule says. It says ONLY the model under the center hole is hit. This clearly is referencing the normal rules for blast weapons in that usually all models under the blast are hit but in this case only the model under the center is hit. There is absolutely no indication in the 5,6 rule that the model is immediately hit without any scatter, just that the only deviation from the normal shooting rules for the SAG are that only the model under the center hole is hit and the shot is S10.
8489
Post by: padixon
Boss Ardnutz wrote:That's right, fullheadofhair.
Because we follow the table result before rolling for scatter - and the table result very clearly tells us that the model under the marker hole is hit. At this point we have not scattered, but we already know what is hit.
We could scatter the marker if we want, but we already know which model is hit. This is exactly how the specifics in the codex ("the model...is hit") override the generalities in the rulebook (all that stuff about scattering the marker).
I'm with you on this one Boss. This seems pretty clear to me.
1. Pick a target
2. Roll for str of weapon
3. If a special result occurs follow the result prior to rolling for scatter
4. Roll for scatter if needed.
The 5,6 result plainly tells us that only the model under the center hole (the one you aimed for because you have to aim for *something*) is hit. Well like Boss Ardnutz said, we already have a hit, and everything else is moot, roll for scatter if you want.
Yakface is right on some accounts, a few of the results still need a scatter roll for, like 6,6 does, because it doesn't specify anything is hit yet so since nothing is hit yet, we have to roll scatter to determine that.
Anyways, this is my opinion on it.
EDIT: I think the big determining factor for me is the word "is" used for the 5,6 result. It references present tense, I mean, if Phil Kelly used the words "can be" or "will be", then I would say without a doubt the hit is yet to be determined, but "is" really sticks me as something that *has* happened or is already happening. While the 6,6 result explanation is in a completely different tense.
I don't know, this is probably just me thinking this.
11073
Post by: Lostboyz
Since this is reaching 'deadlock' phase lemme ask a noob question. Do SAGs require line of sight, or are they considered ordinance and can 'lob' shots?
8489
Post by: padixon
Only Barrage or "G" weapons can 'lob' shots (without LOS). Ordinance has its own special rules.
11073
Post by: Lostboyz
So, SAGs are not barrage and require LOS.
10866
Post by: orky1
Here's the reply I got back from GW about the question on this:
Hello,
You do not scatter with that result.
Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist
Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!
Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST
Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a question regarding the Ork Shock Attack Gun. If you roll doubles or 5,6 do you continue on with the scatter dice? It says place the template, roll for str before scattering and then apply results below if they apply? Thanks
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
This is YMDC, yakface makes da call....sorry John Spencer.
too bad this wont sway the majority's decision.
8471
Post by: olympia
I emailed Mr. Spencer a week ago and haven't heard from him yet so thanks for posting his reply. Obviously his judgment is not surprising in the least bit.
10866
Post by: orky1
Yep I tend to agree when both Phil and John say you don't scatter
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
I tend to agree when a FAQ clarifies what the rules couldn't be arsed to do in the first place....and not before.
6872
Post by: sourclams
I got the same reply from Spencer today regarding the SAG not scattering.
8471
Post by: olympia
sourclams wrote:I got the same reply from Spencer today regarding the SAG not scattering.
Was it just for the "Bzzap" result?
7856
Post by: BlackSpike
My reading:
The Codex tells us that we roll for STR before checking for scatter.
If we roll a double or 5,6 then we check the table (Still before scatter).
The table tells us what the effect of the gun is (Some referring to continuing the attack with some modifiers).
5,6 tells us which model is hit.
We then continue to resolve the attack.
The 5,6 result has determined who gets hit before scatter dice are rolled.
5662
Post by: Boss Ardnutz
Bingo.
60
Post by: yakface
BlackSpike wrote:My reading:
The Codex tells us that we roll for STR before checking for scatter.
If we roll a double or 5,6 then we check the table (Still before scatter).
The table tells us what the effect of the gun is (Some referring to continuing the attack with some modifiers).
5,6 tells us which model is hit.
We then continue to resolve the attack.
The 5,6 result has determined who gets hit before scatter dice are rolled.
And as I've pointed out numerous times, the rule doesn't tell us a model is hit; if it did say something like: "The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" then I'd be on your side of the argument.
But it doesn't say that. It says:
"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10."
The fact that it says "only" tells us that we are still using the normal rules for blast weapons with an exception: that only the model under the center hole is hit by the blast. There is nothing at all to indicate that this is an immediate command instead of just an exception to the normal rules for resolving blast weapons. And because it doesn't we have to follow the normal rules for blast weapons except for when we get to the part where we normally determine which models are hit by the blast the special Shokk Attack rule for the 5,6 result applies instead.
6872
Post by: sourclams
You (Yakface) once jumped on me for positing that Calgar's God of War does not suffer No Retreat! wounds because it said '...may choose to pass...all leadership tests", not "...may choose to [automatically] pass...all leadership tests". Your opinion was that they read the exact same way and therefore the meat of the rule was identical.
So, based on precedence set by your prior rulings, how do you justify your position on this one?
"The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" <--- doesn't scatter by Yakface interpretation
"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10." <--- does scatter by Yakface interpretation
Honestly, how can you say that these two wordings are different enough to warrant completely different results by RAW? Not to mention that the first wording is terrible from a technical standpoint because it makes no mention of what happens to the other models covered by the blast.
6769
Post by: Tri
sourclams wrote:
"The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" <--- doesn't scatter by Yakface interpretation
"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10." <--- does scatter by Yakface interpretation
"only the model under the template hole is hit" ... normal rules for blast weapons are that all models under the template are hit after it scatters. In this case only the model under cenrel hole is hit. Since no change have been made to stop the scatter, the template will scatter before hitting any thing. "Suffers a strenth 10 hit" ...It has been hit
60
Post by: yakface
sourclams wrote:You (Yakface) once jumped on me for positing that Calgar's God of War does not suffer No Retreat! wounds because it said '...may choose to pass...all leadership tests", not "...may choose to [automatically] pass...all leadership tests". Your opinion was that they read the exact same way and therefore the meat of the rule was identical.
So, based on precedence set by your prior rulings, how do you justify your position on this one?
"The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" <--- doesn't scatter by Yakface interpretation
"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10." <--- does scatter by Yakface interpretation
Honestly, how can you say that these two wordings are different enough to warrant completely different results by RAW? Not to mention that the first wording is terrible from a technical standpoint because it makes no mention of what happens to the other models covered by the blast.
I fully agree with you in that the rule would have to be more explicit than that to indicate that the model under the blast suffers a S10 hit (and no other models do). It would have to say something in the realm of: "The attack is not resolved except that the model under the blast suffers a S10 hit".
Although my example wasn't the best, I still stand by the idea that the current wording for the 5,6 SAG result only indicates an exception from who is hit by the blast when following the normal rules for shooting.
5662
Post by: Boss Ardnutz
The problem is that the misfire table specifies a model as hit before any scatter can take place. You could still roll for scatter, but at the point at which "only the model under the centre hole is hit", the marker is still in its original location. Scattering it later wouldn't change which model has been hit as this has already been worked out.
8248
Post by: imweasel
I would have to say unless the ork codex specifically says not to scatter, it will still scatter.
40k is a permissive rules set. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.
And since someone brought it up, strictly speakin GoW doesn't cause no retreat.
Specific wording is a criteria for a rule interpretation.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
I cant see why some people think it wont scatter, there is nothing in the rule stating that it wont even after rolling on the table. The standard "If it isnt there, it doesnt apply" seem to be the thing here.
Also, like Yak said.. There is no contradition where codex>BGB sine there is nothing in the codex that sais anything about not rolling scatters.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I can't believe that I'm posting a reply as I know what the response will be but I feel obligated to so here goes. I emailed GW with this question,"Does the Shokk Attack Gunn scatter after the roll of a double or 5,6? Or do you just use the chart in the ork codex and resolve the hit without scattering?" I recieved this response from Joe Spencer, "Hello, It does not scatter on that result. Thanks!" Now, I know that this post will be countered by, "I haven't seen any FAQ that states that, nor will I accept any change until I have seen said FAQ." And as I have stated earlier I have no hope of changing the minds of those out there, however I will defer to the company that wrote the book, developed the game, & control the copyrights and follow what I was told by them.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
If I am told by my local Redshirt that it does indeed scatter, am I not told by the company that wrote the book, developed the game & control the copyrights?
6846
Post by: solkan
Steelmage99 wrote:If I am told by my local Redshirt that it does indeed scatter, am I not told by the company that wrote the book, developed the game & control the copyrights?
I think I can sum up the response with, "Would you trust the janitor at Games Workshop to give you the correct rules interpretation?" The janitors have just as much rules training as the red shirts.
6769
Post by: Tri
Red shirts do = GW
GW =/= Perfect rules
Perfect rules = perfect rulings
Red shirts do =/= perfect rulings
just a bit of fun ^_^
263
Post by: Centurian99
Redshirts are salesmen/women, not games rules gurus.
By your arguments, you'd feel perfectly safe if you're flying in an airline and the stewardess took over for the pilots...
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
I wasn't arguing that the Redshirt had anything even remotely relevant to say.
I was showing Dawgofwagh how little sense the last line in his post above mine made.
11219
Post by: dawgofwagh
I'm not sure how you can say that didn't make sense. I stated that I was going with the ruling of the people who created the game. I apologise if that wasn't clear to you.
10201
Post by: SeattleDV8
dawgofwagh wrote:I recieved this response from Joe Spencer, "Hello, It does not scatter on that result. Thanks!"
There's your problem The GW "Answer Guy" is John Spencer.
Rumor has it that Joe is the Janitor.
6326
Post by: Daggermaw
By your arguments, you'd feel perfectly safe if you're flying in an airline and the stewardess took over for the pilots...
Just to play devil's advocate, cause i don't care either way about this argument.
But I'd trust a stewardess to fly a plane over a guy in the aisle next to me who says "I've read the book on flying from cover to cover and know all the rules of flying in and out."
263
Post by: Centurian99
Daggermaw wrote:By your arguments, you'd feel perfectly safe if you're flying in an airline and the stewardess took over for the pilots...
Just to play devil's advocate, cause i don't care either way about this argument.
But I'd trust a stewardess to fly a plane over a guy in the aisle next to me who says "I've read the book on flying from cover to cover and know all the rules of flying in and out."
Just playing devil's advocate? Well, I disagree. Just because someone works in a plane doesn't mean that they've got any idea of how to fly.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
dawgofwagh wrote:I'm not sure how you can say that didn't make sense. I stated that I was going with the ruling of the people who created the game. I apologise if that wasn't clear to you.
But you haven't got a ruling from the people who created the game, now do you?
No, you have a "ruling" by an employee who by his own admission isn't games designer, isn't official and isn't even on the same continent as the designers, let alone in the office next door. He has the same stamp of approval as my local GW blackshirt.
And we know how much trust we put in him, don't we?
That is my point.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Daggermaw wrote:But I'd trust a stewardess to fly a plane over a guy in the aisle next to me who says "I've read the book on flying from cover to cover and know all the rules of flying in and out."
Hell, not me. I'd trust a guy with hundreds of hours of simulator time and a 767 manual under his arm over the flight attendant every day of the week. 
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
Wait a second. Did someone just imply that Joe Spencer is a stewardess?
The FAQ is the company's official word. If they choose to codify Spencer's word, then it should appear in the next FAQ (right after the codex in question is re-released).
I think his availability is the big flaw with taking his ruling. As we're all on this forum we know he may have told you something, but there's no reasonable expectation that anyone at your FLGS is going to be aware of the e-mail answer man's opinions. The published FAQs are available to anyone who has toured their website.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Gitzbitah wrote:Wait a second. Did someone just imply that Joe Spencer is a stewardess?
The FAQ is the company's official word. If they choose to codify Spencer's word, then it should appear in the next FAQ (right after the codex in question is re-released).
I think his availability is the big flaw with taking his ruling. As we're all on this forum we know he may have told you something, but there's no reasonable expectation that anyone at your FLGS is going to be aware of the e-mail answer man's opinions. The published FAQs are available to anyone who has toured their website.
GW themselves admit that the only thing 'official' is the errata posted in the faq and that the faq and answers are nothing but their own house rules to be used as the players deem fit. They are no more valid than any local 'house rules' that folks might use at their local venue.
FAQ's are not gospel, not official rulings (outside of errata) and you can use them as you would like. Putting spencer's or yak's name at the end of the faq doesn't really mean squat.
Considering the quality of those faq's, is it hardly suprising that rules are brought up again and again and again and again and again? Or that they are 'house rules'? Or that they hardly answer the tough questions? Or why anyone would want to be 'officially' linked to them at all?
6326
Post by: Daggermaw
Did you people read my post? I said I'd trust the stewardess over a guy in coach who said he knew how to fly because he read the book.
263
Post by: Centurian99
Daggermaw wrote:Did you people read my post? I said I'd trust the stewardess over a guy in coach who said he knew how to fly because he read the book.
Then, not to be to crude, you're suicidal. Because I'd trust someone who'd read the operating manual on a 747 over someone who's job is to serve drinks and help people exit in an emergency.
8489
Post by: padixon
imweasel wrote:
GW themselves admit that the only thing 'official' is the errata posted in the faq and that the faq and answers are nothing but their own house rules to be used as the players deem fit. They are no more valid than any local 'house rules' that folks might use at their local venue.
FAQ's are not gospel, not official rulings (outside of errata) and you can use them as you would like. Putting spencer's or yak's name at the end of the faq doesn't really mean squat.
Considering the quality of those faq's, is it hardly suprising that rules are brought up again and again and again and again and again? Or that they are 'house rules'? Or that they hardly answer the tough questions? Or why anyone would want to be 'officially' linked to them at all?
Quite right
The section he is talking about is the little 'page' before you go to the actual FAQ page, and it describes that the only 'official' changes are the erratas. Anything else is just a 'house rule' and can be played as GW 'house ruled' it or as you see fit.
So, Mr. Spencer, yakface, INAT FAQ, you and me, etc... are all just as 'official' as the GW FAQs (not the erratas) per GW own words.
The truth of the matter is the validity of a GW FAQ is never in question which is why it is universally accepted. Which helps keep the pick-up-game situation where you might run into some guy who uses the 'I heard/read it somewhere' response as low as possible.
10833
Post by: Inigo Montoya
I personally think that you would roll scatter.
It is an insertion in the flow as it is written, so after the insertion, the flow would continue. If is specifically said "end the flow of sag determination" then you would not use a template. It does not, so unless directed otherwise, you follow the rules as written.
|
|
