Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 02:37:23


Post by: MekanobSamael


I'm not sure if this is an inconsistency on the part of GW, or just my own oversight.

Models embarked in a vehicle that moved at cruising speed cannot fire.

Unless they disembark?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 02:38:21


Post by: Gwar!


MekanobSamael wrote:I'm not sure if this is an inconsistency on the part of GW, or just my own oversight.

Models embarked in a vehicle that moved at cruising speed cannot fire.

Unless they disembark?
Correct.

It's called "Intentional Game Balance".


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 02:43:12


Post by: liam0404


Sort of related question:

Can burna boys fire out of a battlewagon thats moved 6 even though they are using template weapons?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 02:44:47


Post by: Gwar!


liam0404 wrote:Sort of related question:

Can burna boys fire out of a battlewagon thats moved 6 even though they are using template weapons?
Yes.

Why would they not be able to?

If they couldn't, DashofPepper would have a LOT of angry opponents! That really is the sole reason anyone takes burnas!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 02:53:27


Post by: liam0404


Yeah the thought of 15 x (insert number of covered models) here is a frightning thought. My ork partner in a 2 vs 2 tonight did it, and I thought "i'm glad im not on the receiving end of that!".

I just wasn't sure because of all the issues with your own templates touching your model - but since it's open topped you can pick any point on the hull to start the template from can't you?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 03:00:59


Post by: Gwar!


liam0404 wrote:Yeah the thought of 15 x (insert number of covered models) here is a frightning thought. My ork partner in a 2 vs 2 tonight did it, and I thought "i'm glad im not on the receiving end of that!".

I just wasn't sure because of all the issues with your own templates touching your model - but since it's open topped you can pick any point on the hull to start the template from can't you?
Correct. Open topped vehicles can legally fire Templates from passengers. It's models like Chimeras and Rhinos that have problems.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 07:07:12


Post by: Alienfood


I disagree with you there Gwar!.

According to p. 66, 3rd paragraph under Fire Points, any unit that has moved with a vehicle at cruising speed may NOT fire, that turn.

Where does it say that this rule is canceled, due to disembarking?

Ex. A Transport moves 9", cruising speed, no-one embarked on the vehicle may shoot.
Instead they disembark, but STILL they've been onboard of a vehicle that has moved at cruising speed, and therefore shouldn't be able to shot.

Perhaps I've missed some rule somewhere, and would be happy if you, or anyone else, could direct me to the page where it says that firing after having moved at cruising speed is ok.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 07:11:26


Post by: Gwar!


Alienfood wrote:I disagree with you there Gwar!.

According to p. 66, 3rd paragraph under Fire Points, any unit that has moved with a vehicle at cruising speed may NOT fire, that turn.

Where does it say that this rule is canceled, due to disembarking?

Ex. A Transport moves 9", cruising speed, no-one embarked on the vehicle may shoot.
Instead they disembark, but STILL they've been onboard of a vehicle that has moved at cruising speed, and therefore shouldn't be able to shot.

Perhaps I've missed some rule somewhere, and would be happy if you, or anyone else, could direct me to the page where it says that firing after having moved at cruising speed is ok.
What, you mean the bit under "Fire Points" that details models firing from "Fire Points" and not firing from not-"Fire Points"?

You have permission to fire from the Shooting Rules.

You Disembark, so you count as having moved.

You are not firing from a Fire Point, so those rules are not taken into consideration.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 14:10:39


Post by: Alienfood


I know it stands under "Fire Points", but the sentence "..may not fire AT ALL if the vehicle moved at cruising speed that turn." made me think that this rule still applies even if they disembark, since it's still the same turn, and they have been aboard a vehicle that moved at cruising speed.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/08 14:40:36


Post by: time wizard


Alienfood wrote:I know it stands under "Fire Points", but the sentence "..may not fire AT ALL if the vehicle moved at cruising speed that turn." made me think that this rule still applies even if they disembark, since it's still the same turn, and they have been aboard a vehicle that moved at cruising speed.


But the first part of that sentence is, "Models firing from a vehicle..." and once you have disembarked you are no longer firing from the vehicle.
You therefore have to go by the "Disembarking" section on the following page that says the models may shoot (counting as moving) but may not assault.
This also applies to transports that arrive via deep strike. The vehicles count as moving at cruising speed, and when they arrive, the passengers cannot move (other than to disembark) but in the Shooting phase, they are free to fire (or run) as normal but obviously count as having moved (BRB page 95 q.v.)


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/10 02:50:34


Post by: sbrook129


Ive had 15 burna's shoot at a squad of 7 plague marines of mine, did about 60 hits in total, not a single wound! hah go plague marines!
But yeah if you disembark a transport after it moves at cruising speed you can still fire, but to my knowlege only if its a weapon that can be fired after moving (rapid firing bolters etc).


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/10 04:09:53


Post by: Apostle Pat


time wizard wrote:
Alienfood wrote:I know it stands under "Fire Points", but the sentence "..may not fire AT ALL if the vehicle moved at cruising speed that turn." made me think that this rule still applies even if they disembark, since it's still the same turn, and they have been aboard a vehicle that moved at cruising speed.


But the first part of that sentence is, "Models firing from a vehicle..." and once you have disembarked you are no longer firing from the vehicle.
You therefore have to go by the "Disembarking" section on the following page that says the models may shoot (counting as moving) but may not assault.
This also applies to transports that arrive via deep strike. The vehicles count as moving at cruising speed, and when they arrive, the passengers cannot move (other than to disembark) but in the Shooting phase, they are free to fire (or run) as normal but obviously count as having moved (BRB page 95 q.v.)


Agreed :-p Otherwise, drop podding shooty termies are useless lol.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 09:25:57


Post by: Chinchilla


Gwar! wrote:
liam0404 wrote:Yeah the thought of 15 x (insert number of covered models) here is a frightning thought. My ork partner in a 2 vs 2 tonight did it, and I thought "i'm glad im not on the receiving end of that!".

I just wasn't sure because of all the issues with your own templates touching your model - but since it's open topped you can pick any point on the hull to start the template from can't you?
Correct. Open topped vehicles can legally fire Templates from passengers. It's models like Chimeras and Rhinos that have problems.


Damn... Didn't know that... No rhino flaming? My frend is gonna be so pissed I drive to his green tide at 750pts with rhinos and burn combi-flamer and flamer from one rhino and avanger and other flamer from other rhino... One boyz die... Then he assaults rhinos with 2 remaining squads and destroys them (usually explodes so more dead boyz ) and then I repeat flaming process... He's gonna kill me


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 09:34:45


Post by: Gwar!


Chinchilla wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
liam0404 wrote:Yeah the thought of 15 x (insert number of covered models) here is a frightning thought. My ork partner in a 2 vs 2 tonight did it, and I thought "i'm glad im not on the receiving end of that!".

I just wasn't sure because of all the issues with your own templates touching your model - but since it's open topped you can pick any point on the hull to start the template from can't you?
Correct. Open topped vehicles can legally fire Templates from passengers. It's models like Chimeras and Rhinos that have problems.
Damn... Didn't know that... No rhino flaming? My frend is gonna be so pissed I drive to his green tide at 750pts with rhinos and burn combi-flamer and flamer from one rhino and avanger and other flamer from other rhino... One boyz die... Then he assaults rhinos with 2 remaining squads and destroys them (usually explodes so more dead boyz ) and then I repeat flaming process... He's gonna kill me
Heh, it is only a "thought experiment", "silly RaW" or (as is it know in these parts), "That Fella Gwar! being a huge dick for following the rules."

Most people play it (for some reason, I honestly did not see any problem with not being able to fire them since that is what the rules say till I came to Dakka) that you can fire from Chimeras/Rhinos etc.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 09:57:09


Post by: Chinchilla


So is it RaW as "Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)" or would people mind it on tournament?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 10:07:58


Post by: Gwar!


Chinchilla wrote:So is it RaW as "Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)" or would people mind it on tournament?
Not all Turret Flamers are unable to fire, as some Jutt out quite a bit if you turn them sideways.

But yes, some cannot fire, RaW.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 12:03:51


Post by: Drunkspleen


Gwar! wrote:
Chinchilla wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
liam0404 wrote:Yeah the thought of 15 x (insert number of covered models) here is a frightning thought. My ork partner in a 2 vs 2 tonight did it, and I thought "i'm glad im not on the receiving end of that!".

I just wasn't sure because of all the issues with your own templates touching your model - but since it's open topped you can pick any point on the hull to start the template from can't you?
Correct. Open topped vehicles can legally fire Templates from passengers. It's models like Chimeras and Rhinos that have problems.
Damn... Didn't know that... No rhino flaming? My frend is gonna be so pissed I drive to his green tide at 750pts with rhinos and burn combi-flamer and flamer from one rhino and avanger and other flamer from other rhino... One boyz die... Then he assaults rhinos with 2 remaining squads and destroys them (usually explodes so more dead boyz ) and then I repeat flaming process... He's gonna kill me
Heh, it is only a "thought experiment", "silly RaW" or (as is it know in these parts), "That Fella Gwar! being a huge dick for following the rules."

Most people play it (for some reason, I honestly did not see any problem with not being able to fire them since that is what the rules say till I came to Dakka) that you can fire from Chimeras/Rhinos etc.


Of course, the whole discussion is moot (the american kind) given that no model can fire a flamer because in doing so, the flame template touches the firing model, breaching the rules which stipulate you must not touch any friendly models.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 12:14:11


Post by: Gwar!


Drunkspleen wrote:Of course, the whole discussion is moot (the american kind) given that no model can fire a flamer because in doing so, the flame template touches the firing model, breaching the rules which stipulate you must not touch any friendly models.
Ah, but that is where you are incorrect good sir!

If I may direct you to page Twenty-Nine of the Main Warhammer 40,000 rulebook (commonly known as the "BRB" or "BGB"), which is found within the Chapter entitled "Weapons".

Within the aforementioned chapter, there are several Headers and Sub-headers. The sub-header currently of interest, entitled "Template", resides on page Twenty-Nine underneath the header entitled "Additional Weapon Characteristics".

Here, you will find that the rules instruct you to "place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."

As I am sure you can appreciate kind intoxicated remover of old red blood cells, there are, in fact, two rules in effect here, as evidenced by the conjunction "and", which links together two separate sentences.

The first instructs one to "place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it", while the second requires "the rest of the template [to cover] as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."

I am sure you can agree that the first rule is, as a matter of fact, more specific than the second, as it takes into account only a single model that is firing a weapon for which the Template rules are applicable rather than the multitude of models that could be considered "friendly".

As such, you are permitted to place the Template touching the firing model, as you are given special dispensation to do so!

Furthermore, notice that the wording is indeed different when it comes to who is actually hit. Only models "fully or partially under the template are hit", not models touched. As such, the firing model will not be hit by his own weapon. I mention this as it is common misconception when debating these rules in the manner for which I am known.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 13:42:16


Post by: mattyrm


I thought you could fire your flamer from a rhino? ;(


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 13:53:17


Post by: Gwar!


mattyrm wrote:I thought you could fire your flamer from a rhino? ;(
Sadly, you cannot, RaW.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 14:01:42


Post by: Scott-S6


Well, you can declare that you're firing it - there's no prohibition on that.

But then you have to find a way of placing the template where it's touching the firepoint (hatch) but not covering any of the rhino.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 15:02:38


Post by: calypso2ts


Okay lets be clear though on this.

The rules technically prohibit you from firing a flamer from a fire point on some vehicles. They also technically stop some vehicles (like an Immolator) from firing.

However, almost everyone plays it that you can shoot from these hatches and assumes it is an unintentional rules oversight. So be mindful when you try to pull this one on people firing out of vehicles.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 15:40:51


Post by: SaintHazard


I once had a guy nearly jump over the table at me when I told him that, strictly speaking, his Baal predators could not fire their template weapons, but that we'd house-rule it so that they could. Apparently following the rules is a touchy subject?

Also, beware teenage Sparkle Mehreens players.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 16:22:06


Post by: Major Malfunction


SaintHazard wrote:... I told him that, strictly speaking, his Baal predators could not fire their template weapons, but that we'd house-rule it so that they could. Apparently following the rules is a touchy subject?


Let's talk about this situation for a moment. Considering the Baal Predator with template weapons (a legal choice in the vehicle rules) is violating the template weapon rules as laid out in the core rules in the book, when we encounter an opponent using them do we:

A: Use this position to rub the persons' nose in crap. Tell our opponent they are cheating, but we will let them.
B: Think GW unintentionally created an conflicting situation and understand the intention of the Codex author to allow the template weapon to fire.

Personally, I'll go with "B". You can arugue "A" all day long and while technically you'd be right, you'd also still be a dick. Not calling anyone in particular here a dick, just saying in my opinion this is a dick move.



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 17:24:56


Post by: SaintHazard


But am I wrong?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 18:11:38


Post by: Brother Ramses


No, you are right, but for the sake of being a dick.

You "letting" him play the way that the game designers so very obviously designed the weapon to work is not being a RAW advocate or a RAW purists, it is being a smug RAW dick.



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/11 18:14:18


Post by: SaintHazard


Brother Ramses wrote:No, you are right

Well alright then.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 05:39:27


Post by: Gwar!


SaintHazard wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:No, you are right

Well alright then.
Huzzah! Brother Ramses finally admits the people playing by the rules are, shockingly, in the right when it comes to playing by the rules!

And no, we don't do it "for the sake of being a dick", we do it for the sake of following the rules.

Would you call your opponent a dick when playing chess if he refused to let your pawns move 5 spaces a turn?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 13:44:00


Post by: Jaon


Bad example Gwar, the creators of chess never intended you to be able to move 5 spaces a turn!

Now ladies, lets be realistic here. Sure, it happens to be a funny little niche in the rules, but applying it in game? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Your line, Hazard, "We house ruled it" is quite hard to come to terms with! You had to have a formal agreement to allow his unit to fire because strictly speaking and total rules lawyeringly he could not? save for the fact that a Baal predator can infact fire all of its templates legally (if the turret is facing forward, the template never goes over the turret or hull, it starts at the front)?

Without meaning to tell you what to do, wouldnt it be a good idea to say when your stating RAW and stating how its meant to be played / how you play? Not letting someone fire their flamer out of a rhino is TFG WAAC OMGWTFBBQ!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 14:23:18


Post by: SaintHazard




That is a Baal predator.

Its turret template weapon is fired, like all vehicle weapons, from the barrel of the gun. Therefore, placing the template at the tip of the barrel of the gun, when the turret is facing forward, places the template illegally over a friendly model.

I have no problem house-ruling this so that it can be legally done. It's not unreasonable to assume that the designer intended that weapon to be able to fire. It's not often you pay for weapons that aren't supposed to be used. However, we must recognize that that's all this is: a house rule.

You're not "TFG" if you don't want your opponent to be illegally placing his templates... but if you have a Baal predator, and you want to be able to fire that weapon, don't you? So ask your opponent if he's alright with a house rule that allows you to use that weapon you paid for, modeled, paid in points for, and want to field.

From a practical standpoint, asking your opponent if you can legally fire your template weapon on your Baal predator is almost never going to end with him/her saying no.

From a strict RAW standpoint, the template weapon cannot be legally fired.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 16:25:11


Post by: Grakmar


Pointing out a hilarious oversight with RAW but not actually expecting anyone to play that way: No big deal.

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them use their gun: You're being an

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and NOT letting them fire their gun: TFG who deserves to have no one ever play them, ever


The difference between 1 and 2 is fairly small and it all comes down to tone. Be careful how you come across when pointing out these inconsistencies. Not everyone enjoys finding loopholes as much as some of us do


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 16:28:55


Post by: Gwar!


Grakmar wrote:Pointing out a hilarious oversight with RAW but not actually expecting anyone to play that way: No big deal.

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them use their gun: You're being an

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and NOT letting them fire their gun: TFG who deserves to have no one ever play them, ever


The difference between 1 and 2 is fairly small and it all comes down to tone. Be careful how you come across when pointing out these inconsistencies. Not everyone enjoys finding loopholes as much as some of us do
Actually 3 is perfectly acceptable.

Would you call someone a TFG if they did not let Space Marine Scouts from assaulting after Running? After all, I can point out they they forgot to give them fleet, and therefore not let you run then assault.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 16:35:34


Post by: Grakmar


Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:Pointing out a hilarious oversight with RAW but not actually expecting anyone to play that way: No big deal.

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them use their gun: You're being an

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and NOT letting them fire their gun: TFG who deserves to have no one ever play them, ever


The difference between 1 and 2 is fairly small and it all comes down to tone. Be careful how you come across when pointing out these inconsistencies. Not everyone enjoys finding loopholes as much as some of us do
Actually 3 is perfectly acceptable.

Would you call someone a TFG if they did not let Space Marine Scouts from assaulting after Running? After all, I can point out they they forgot to give them fleet, and therefore not let you run then assault.


There's a difference between poor wording of a rule or placement of a weapon resulting in a model with the rule or weapon being unable to use it, and a unit that you "feel" should get an ability that doesn't have it.

If scouts don't have the fleet rule, then they can't run and assault. But a Baal Predator has guns that it was intentionally given. It should be able to fire those guns.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 16:44:23


Post by: Gwar!


Grakmar wrote:There's a difference between poor wording of a rule or placement of a weapon resulting in a model with the rule or weapon being unable to use it, and a unit that you "feel" should get an ability that doesn't have it.

If scouts don't have the fleet rule, then they can't run and assault. But a Baal Predator has guns that it was intentionally given. It should be able to fire those guns.
That os what you think, not what the rules say though.

The rules are clear. If they wanted to fix them, they could have. They didn't though, so either they know and want Baals to be unable to fire, or they simply don't care about their playerbase anymore (for what it's worth, I pick the latter).


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:06:24


Post by: Fearspect


So the tank hull is a friendly model to the turret? As in the tank is friendly to its own turrent? It seems that this is the point on which the argument turns.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:07:05


Post by: SaintHazard


Fearspect wrote:So the tank hull is a friendly model to the turret? As in the tank is friendly to its own turrent? It seems that this is the point on which the argument turns.

Are your own models not friendly models? How can they be anything but?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:09:39


Post by: Fearspect


Friendship seems like an external thing to me, maybe the tank is like a moody goth kid?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:12:33


Post by: SaintHazard


Well the tank's certainly not its own worst enemy.







Yes, the tank's hull is "a friendly model."


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:18:49


Post by: Hallowed_Da'Credo


Fearspect wrote:Friendship seems like an external thing to me, maybe the tank is like a moody goth kid?

I'm inclined to agree with that. (external friendship, tanks can't cut themselves)
I wouldn't classify one's self as friendly, just by the connotation of friendly being to someone else.

Edit: Although internal passengers firing flamers out would consider the tank friendly.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:19:46


Post by: Fearspect


Its not all enemies and friends, there are shades of gray, even in the grim darkness of the future!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:30:47


Post by: SaintHazard


Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:
Fearspect wrote:Friendship seems like an external thing to me, maybe the tank is like a moody goth kid?

I'm inclined to agree with that. (external friendship, tanks can't cut themselves)
I wouldn't classify one's self as friendly, just by the connotation of friendly being to someone else.

Edit: Although internal passengers firing flamers out would consider the tank friendly.

That's not really how the rules work, but if you want to house rule it, as has been said, go wild.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:37:45


Post by: Arctik_Firangi


Excuse me... but does the rulebook actually say anything about the template covering friendly models?

I can't find it. Enemy models must be covered by the template to be hit, and it simply states that friendly models cannot be touched by the template (excluding the base of the firing model or the vehicle weapon) when maximising the number of enemy models covered. Does 'touching' have two different meanings in the same sentence?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:38:12


Post by: don_mondo


Fearspect wrote:So the tank hull is a friendly model to the turret? As in the tank is friendly to its own turrent? It seems that this is the point on which the argument turns.


Is it an enemy model? No. Far as I know, there are no 'neutral' models (barring some special scenario). That must mean that the firing model is itself a friendly model. And the template cannot be placed so that it touches a friendly model. SO due to the requirement that you place the template touching base of the firing model or touching the tip of the firing weapon, a flamer (other than Hellhound type flamers) can never be fired by RAW as it must touch the base/weapon but cannot be fired if it touches the base/weapon.

And no, I don't play that way. Just pointing out silly RAW.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Excuse me... but does the rulebook actually say anything about the template covering friendly models?

I can't find it. Enemy models must be covered by the template to be hit, and it simply states that friendly models cannot be touched by the template (excluding the base of the firing model or the vehicle weapon) when maximising the number of enemy models covered.


And where does it exclude the firing model. I've looked for such a statement and, as you said, I can't find it. Just the one saying it must touch the firing model and the other one saying it cannot touch any friendly models. Second one says nothing about 'except for the firing model'...............................


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:44:56


Post by: Fearspect


Hey, don mondo, just read through your signature there. So you know, they just made the Fantasy FAQs official, and are probably on the way to doing the same for the 40k ones. Excitement!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:50:51


Post by: MekanobSamael


I suppose that nobody's going to buy that nonsense about turning you Baal so that the flamer peeks over one one side?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:51:45


Post by: SaintHazard


MekanobSamael wrote:I suppose that nobody's going to buy that nonsense about turning you Baal so that the flamer peeks over one one side?

You have to expose side armor to do it. But it's a perfectly legal way, with no house ruling required, to fire the Baal predator's flamer.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:52:36


Post by: Lucid


Back on topic, and just so I can clarify this.

IG vets using the Grave Chute rule from a Valk moving flat out can fire after they land?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 18:53:38


Post by: SaintHazard


Lucid wrote:Back on topic, and just so I can clarify this.

IG vets using the Grave Chute rule from a Valk moving flat out can fire after they land?

Does it say they can?

I'm honestly asking, I don't have my IG codex on me, and I know it's a special kind of disembarkment. Disembarkation. Disembarkery.

I hate the word "disembark."


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 19:16:48


Post by: Phototoxin


Well with Baal preditors the solution is simple, model them to have an 18" long turret, you deploy only from the hull so it's all kosher. Then on turn 1 move up and fry the enemy in his deployment zone.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 19:19:22


Post by: don_mondo


Lucid wrote:Back on topic, and just so I can clarify this.

IG vets using the Grave Chute rule from a Valk moving flat out can fire after they land?


Yes, they can. Nothing in Grav Chute Insertion prohibits shooting.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 19:28:15


Post by: Arctik_Firangi


don_mondo wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Excuse me... but does the rulebook actually say anything about the template covering friendly models?

I can't find it. Enemy models must be covered by the template to be hit, and it simply states that friendly models cannot be touched by the template (excluding the base of the firing model or the vehicle weapon) when maximising the number of enemy models covered.


And where does it exclude the firing model. I've looked for such a statement and, as you said, I can't find it. Just the one saying it must touch the firing model and the other one saying it cannot touch any friendly models. Second one says nothing about 'except for the firing model'...............................


You are directed to place the 'narrow end' of the template so that it is touching the firer's weapon or base, depending on if it is a vehicle or not. You position 'the rest of the template' as directed - so that it covers the maximum number of enemy models without touching any 'friendly models'.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 19:32:18


Post by: Grakmar


Arctik_Firangi wrote:
You are directed to place the 'narrow end' of the template so that it is touching the firer's weapon or base, depending on if it is a vehicle or not. You position 'the rest of the template' as directed - so that it covers the maximum number of enemy models without touching any 'friendly models'.


Is that an actual rules quote? I think we may have found our solution if it does change from "covers" to "touching".


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 19:47:37


Post by: Arctik_Firangi


Nowhere does it say you can't cover a friendly model with the template. You are exclusively permitted to touch the firing model's base (which would presumably become the weapon in the case of a vehicle) with the narrow end of the template. You must cover as many enemy models as possible (or greatest area of vehicle) and the template may not touch friendly models. It still says that everything completely or partially below the template is hit.

You want some weird RAW? Read the Blast weapons section on the next page. You aren't allowed to graze your own models with the blast template.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 19:54:58


Post by: Grakmar


Well, then it turns out the Baal Predator can fire directly forward. At least, as long as you're firing the 2D template at an angle high enough to miss the front of the tank. Problem solved! (Although, it does always shoot itself)


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:07:39


Post by: Gwar!


I answered this not 2 days ago in another thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/321235.page#2012408

Gwar! the Fantastical Trolle of DakkaDakka wrote:Ah, but that is where you are incorrect good sir!

If I may direct you to page Twenty-Nine of the Main Warhammer 40,000 rulebook (commonly known as the "BRB" or "BGB"), which is found within the Chapter entitled "Weapons".

Within the aforementioned chapter, there are several Headers and Sub-headers. The sub-header currently of interest, entitled "Template", resides on page Twenty-Nine underneath the header entitled "Additional Weapon Characteristics".

Here, you will find that the rules instruct you to "place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."

As I am sure you can appreciate kind intoxicated remover of old red blood cells, there are, in fact, two rules in effect here, as evidenced by the conjunction "and", which links together two separate sentences.

The first instructs one to "place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it", while the second requires "the rest of the template [to cover] as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."

I am sure you can agree that the first rule is, as a matter of fact, more specific than the second, as it takes into account only a single model that is firing a weapon for which the Template rules are applicable rather than the multitude of models that could be considered "friendly".

As such, you are permitted to place the Template touching the firing model, as you are given special dispensation to do so!

Furthermore, notice that the wording is indeed different when it comes to who is actually hit. Only models "fully or partially under the template are hit", not models touched. As such, the firing model will not be hit by his own weapon. I mention this as it is common misconception when debating these rules in the manner for which I am known.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:16:03


Post by: Grakmar


But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:19:21


Post by: Gwar!


Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.
Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:21:39


Post by: Grakmar


Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.
Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...


No, the template is a good 1/2 inch or so above the friendly models and the front of the tank. By strict RAW, that's not touching them. It's certainly covering them, but there's no restriction on that.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:36:59


Post by: calypso2ts


So under this logic so long as my flamer template is over, but not touching, my models I can fire it wherever I want?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:40:29


Post by: SaintHazard


I love it when people make up rules. It makes the game so much easier to win, when the made-up rules give one army an enormous advantage. Is it a coincidence that the army given the advantage is the one people making these rules up play? Can we talk about my Orks never losing, because their fluff says so yet, or have we yet to reach that level of absurdity?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 20:49:17


Post by: Grakmar


calypso2ts wrote:So under this logic so long as my flamer template is over, but not touching, my models I can fire it wherever I want?


Correct. But, be careful, you have to have the flame template touching the base of the model. So, to clear the heads of the models in front of you, you'll have to place it at a very steep angle, and it will lose quite a bit of range.

And, to clarify: No, I do NOT play this way. This is just my argument, using strict RAW, to counter the argument that a Baal Predator isn't allowed to shoot.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:24:34


Post by: SmackCakes


I don't see any reason why a baal predator can't fire forward. The rules say that the template shouldn't touch any 'friendly models'. Firstly the predator is not a friendly model, it is the firing unit. The rules don't have any problem with the template touching the firing unit.

Secondly the template is not technically 'touching' which is obvious if you view it from the side. The rules do say that any model under the template is hit... You could argue that the predator technically hits itself, but so long as the template doesn't touch I don't see why it can't fire.

But again my primary argument is that the pred is not a friendly unit, it is the firing unit so cannot therefore block its own shot.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:28:23


Post by: SaintHazard


So it's an enemy unit? So as long as your units have fired, you can fire at them?

Does this include close combats?

So if I have a unit of assault marines who fire their pistols, then rush into CC, next turn I can fire into the CC, because by your logic, they're not longer friendly models?

Cool! These are some of the best made-up rules I've ever seen.

The Baal predator is a friendly model. Always has been, always will be. At no time does that change, for any reason.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:41:33


Post by: Brother Ramses


Gwar! wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:No, you are right

Well alright then.
Huzzah! Brother Ramses finally admits the people playing by the rules are, shockingly, in the right when it comes to playing by the rules!

And no, we don't do it "for the sake of being a dick", we do it for the sake of following the rules.

Would you call your opponent a dick when playing chess if he refused to let your pawns move 5 spaces a turn?


If the inventers of chess designed pawns to move 5 spaces a turn, I would let him. I would not deny him because the rules for chess use the term "squares" instead of "spaces" which it appears you would point out in your smug RAW manner.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:43:24


Post by: SmackCakes


Are you the kind of person that would add yourself as a a friend on facebook etc?

The predator is not a friendly towards the firing unit, it IS the firing unit.


So if I have a unit of assault marines who fire their pistols, then rush into CC, next turn I can fire into the CC, because by your logic, they're not longer friendly models?


What... the... hell... !...

If you are going to create a ridiculous strawman argument to fight against. At least have the decency to make one up that makes sense and is somewhat related to the subject at hand. How is that my logic? The rules are clear on firing into or out of combat, and how do assault mariner stop being friendly just because they are in CC?

Try again, and bring a real argument.





Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:47:23


Post by: SaintHazard


It is a friendly firing unit. It never magically becomes "not a friendly unit" because it starts shooting guns. Where are you getting that idea?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:53:56


Post by: nosferatu1001


You are friendly to yourself because of a couple of clues. One is that a Sanguinary priest benefits from the chalice, which requires you to be a friendly unit.

You are not neutral as regards yourself, you are friendly. Unless you hate yourself....


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:55:02


Post by: Gwar!


Clearly, in the Grimdarkness of the Grimdark Future, there is only EMO!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:55:32


Post by: SmackCakes


It has nothing to do with it shooting guns or not. There are no friendly units between the predator and the enemy.

How can the predator be between itself and the enemy?

You are friendly to yourself because of a couple of clues. One is that a Sanguinary priest benefits from the chalice, which requires you to be a friendly unit.


That had to be FAQed. I'm pretty sure if the predator was FAQed GW would tell you that it can fire forward.

On the flip side Sanguinor gives friendly units +1 attack but not himself, so it is not universal.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 21:57:57


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:It has nothing to do with it shooting guns or not. There are no friendly units between the predator and the enemy.

Except itself, which is a friendly unit. As I keep saying.

You have two kinds of units on the board - friendly and enemy. The Predator can't be neither, it has to be one or the other. If it's not an enemy unit, it's a friendly unit. It never stops being a friendly unit, even when it's firing its own weapon at itself.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 22:02:36


Post by: SmackCakes


The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 22:12:05


Post by: Gwar!


SmackCakes wrote:The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.
No, read the rules for vehicles. It can only touch the gun barrel.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 22:31:06


Post by: SmackCakes


Gwar! wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.
No, read the rules for vehicles. It can only touch the gun barrel.


Would you be so kind as to provide a page number, I can't find this myself.

I can see a note on page 56 under Vehicles and Measuring distances, Which says range and LOS is from the weapons muzzle, but templates don't use range. According to this as the vehicle has no base you should use the hull.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 22:33:47


Post by: Gwar!


SmackCakes wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.
No, read the rules for vehicles. It can only touch the gun barrel.


Would you be so kind as to provide a page number, I can't find this myself.

I can see a note on page 56 I see a note under Vehicles and Measuring distances, Which says range and LOS is from the weapons muzzle, but templates don't use range. According to this as the vehicle has no base you should use the hull.
... Seriously? Templates don't use range when a Template Weapons range is "Template"?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 22:38:16


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:templates don't use range

Er, yes they do? They have range "Template." That's why under "Range" it says "Template." I kind of felt that should be fairly obvious?

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:00:25


Post by: SmackCakes


Gwar! wrote:Seriously? Templates don't use range when a Template Weapons range is "Template"?


They use a template instead of a range. The rule say 'range is measured from the gun barrel" it makes sense that the template should also be from the gun barrel, but I don't think you can claim that RAW explicitly states that the template touches the gun because RAW doesn't mention templates.

I also don't see how the claim that the gun can't fire forward is supported anywhere. If the rules said that template weapons fired from vehicles mustn't be over the any part of the hull, then I would agree that the Baal can't fire forward. But the rules don't say that, what they say is ambiguous at best. I don't see anything in the rules that says you definitely can't fire forward.

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:06:31


Post by: Gwar!


SmackCakes wrote:
Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol
They do. They have an AP of "-".


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:11:31


Post by: SmackCakes


Gwar! wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:
Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol
They do. They have an AP of "-".


Page 20 the rules say a weapon with AP"-" has no armour piercing value. Those are the exact words.





Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:18:01


Post by: Gwar!


SmackCakes wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:
Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol
They do. They have an AP of "-".


Page 20 the rules say a weapon with AP"-" has no armour piercing value. Those are the exact words.



But they still have an AP of -. If they had no AP value, they wouldn't get -1 on the Vehicle Damage Table.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:28:16


Post by: Fearspect


Gwar! wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:
Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol
They do. They have an AP of "-".


So glad you came back to Dakka even though you promised you were quitting for good.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:33:40


Post by: kirsanth


Fearspect wrote:So glad you came back to Dakka even though you promised you were quitting for good.



And everything was coming along so well. . . .

What was this thread about again?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:35:47


Post by: Gwar!


No Idea. Glad to see it has descended into petty personal attacks again however.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:52:15


Post by: SmackCakes


Gwar wrote:But they still have an AP of -. If they had no AP value, they wouldn't get -2 on the Vehicle Damage Table.


They don't get -2 they get -1. Their AP is shown as "-" because they have no AP value. The rules are very clear on this. How come you can draw so many of your own conclusions with certainty from rules that are at best ambiguous, yet when the rules explicitly state (page 20) "A weapon shown as 'AP -' has no armour piercing value" we are still debating it.

I win this point, no contest.

SaintHazzard wrote:Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?


Indeed I am going to tell you that Lasgans have no AP value, as explicitly stated on page 20 of the rule book.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/12 23:54:57


Post by: Gwar!


No, I win, because Orks can never lose and I am an Ork!

Also, typo ftl.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 00:10:32


Post by: alarmingrick


I agree with SmackCakes on this. the hull is part of the firer, not a seperate model.
using the hull as a friendly model is like saying a SM's leg is a seperate friendly model.
now if the Baal had some SMs in between the target and itself would be a better example of a friendly model.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 00:29:15


Post by: ChrisCP


So the XXJY is not a friendly model? Then why isn't it taking a hit from your shooting?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 00:45:17


Post by: SaintHazard


alarmingrick wrote:I agree with SmackCakes on this. the hull is part of the firer, not a seperate model.
using the hull as a friendly model is like saying a SM's leg is a seperate friendly model.
now if the Baal had some SMs in between the target and itself would be a better example of a friendly model.

Nobody said the hull was not part of the firer.

Thing is, the firer is a friendly model.

Also, SmackCakes, let me go ahead and show you where your "Lasguns have no AP value" argument falls absolutely flat. Close combat attacks have no AP value. Lasguns have an AP value of "--". What's the difference? Weapons with an AP value of "--" are -1 on the vehicle damage table. Weapons with NO AP VALUE have no effect on the vehicle damage table.

So what you're telling us is that because Lasguns and close combat attacks have the same AP value (none), close combat attacks always, no exceptions, are -1 on the vehicle damage table? I mean, if it's the same thing as AP --, then they'd have to.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 02:04:45


Post by: Fearspect


There is a difference between not having an AP value (which is only on shooting attacks) and not having an AP stat at all (close combat).

You keep taking hugely out of context situations to try on prove your points.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 04:52:48


Post by: SaintHazard


Fearspect wrote:There is a difference between not having an AP value (which is only on shooting attacks) and not having an AP stat at all (close combat).

You keep taking hugely out of context situations to try on prove your points.

Yeah, if only the BRB would clarify this by using the specific wording, "no AP value," when talking about close combat.

Oh wait, it does.

You're just making things up.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 05:02:09


Post by: SmackCakes


The rules say that in combat a pistol counts as normal CCW so strength and AP are ignored. CC don't have a -1 against armour because AP is ignored in CC. Laspistols also do not get -1 in CC with a vehicle.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 05:15:32


Post by: SaintHazard


And that doesn't tell you that "no AP value" and "an AP value of '--'" are two different things? You literally just stated that they are exactly that.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 06:49:56


Post by: Hallowed_Da'Credo


Not to divert the argument any more than already, but necron monoliths can deepstrike and fire the particle whip, right?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 07:12:51


Post by: ChrisCP


N.

=_=


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 07:53:51


Post by: Arctik_Firangi


Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.
Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...


If being covered is being touched, then is being touched being covered? It must be, because the bases are beveled and you can't touch it unless a part of the base is below it... unless of course you're taking advantage of the fact that models aren't required by the rules to stand on their bases...

It's not even relevant. The rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. They certainly do not say that being covered is also being touched by the template. They've used the term 'touching' in the same sentence, where it explicitly requires a part of the template to be touching to the base of the model. If they'd meant something else, they should have used a different word. They didn't, and so it is written.

"These are particularly indiscriminate short-ranged devices..." p. 29

I house rule otherwise, but that's what it says.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 08:21:04


Post by: Chinchilla


Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:Not to divert the argument any more than already, but necron monoliths can deepstrike and fire the particle whip, right?


There is nice little thread which I can't find now... I think it grew to few pages

There is this thing with more specific rule in brb that overrides the rule in codex (in codex it says he can use it if moves, yet doesn't specify the speed, so rule in brb that disallows shooting if moved more than 6'' is more specific )...

Must say, every time I open YMDC thread about Necrons, I get disappointed more and more... I have just one comment:



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 12:02:02


Post by: SaintHazard


Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.
Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...


If being covered is being touched, then is being touched being covered? It must be, because the bases are beveled and you can't touch it unless a part of the base is below it... unless of course you're taking advantage of the fact that models aren't required by the rules to stand on their bases...

It's not even relevant. The rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. They certainly do not say that being covered is also being touched by the template. They've used the term 'touching' in the same sentence, where it explicitly requires a part of the template to be touching to the base of the model. If they'd meant something else, they should have used a different word. They didn't, and so it is written.

"These are particularly indiscriminate short-ranged devices..." p. 29

I house rule otherwise, but that's what it says.

If a square is a rectangle, aren't all rectangles also squares?

(no)


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 12:39:38


Post by: Arctik_Firangi


Unless it has beveled edges...


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 13:20:57


Post by: SaintHazard


Arctik_Firangi wrote:Unless it has beveled edges...

In which case it's no longer a square OR a rectangle... it's an octagon.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 18:26:12


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Unless it has beveled edges...

In which case it's no longer a square OR a rectangle... it's an octagon.


I think it's actually a trapezoid.

SaintHazard wrote:And that doesn't tell you that "no AP value" and "an AP value of '--'" are two different things? You literally just stated that they are exactly that.


No. You said that close combat weapons have no AP value. Here is you saying it...

SaintHazzard wrote:Also, SmackCakes, let me go ahead and show you where your "Lasguns have no AP value" argument falls absolutely flat. Close combat attacks have no AP value. Lasguns have an AP value of "--". What's the difference? Weapons with an AP value of "--" are -1 on the vehicle damage table.


But I'm afraid it your argument that falls flat because weapons with an AP value of "-" do not suffer -1 on the vehicle damage table when they are used in close combat. Therefore the difference as you put it, is nothing.

So lets go back and fix your last statement, taking the actual facts into account...

SaintHazzard wrote:Close combat attacks have no AP value. Lasguns have an AP value of "--". What's the difference? Nothing*


Logically if no AP value and an AP value of "-" are the same, then... they are the same. The statement proves itself by way of pure obviousness.

However if you need further proof still... May I direct you (once again) to page 20 of the BRB where it is spelled out in black and white.

Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook wrote:A weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value


Those are the exact words from the book no armour piercing value. If you want to argue about this further then I suggest you take it to the 'proposed rules' forum. This board is for actual rules

If you really do care about what is true, and what the rules say then you have to concede this point. If not then I'm just going to assume you are just arguing for the sake of it, to try and save face...

Because people who can't admit they are wrong get so much more respect, right?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 18:30:47


Post by: kirsanth


I think it's awesome. I had never read it that way.



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 18:42:53


Post by: SaintHazard


Then perhaps "no AP value" is not a good way to word it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are two different things. Again, if they were the same thing, and you've essentially said this yourself, CC attacks would always be -1 to the damage table.

So an AP value of "--" is in fact quite different from whatever you want to call what it is that CC attacks have.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 19:00:28


Post by: don_mondo


Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:Not to divert the argument any more than already, but necron monoliths can deepstrike and fire the particle whip, right?


Most recent discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320946.page


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 19:25:38


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:Then perhaps "no AP value" is not a good way to word it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are two different things. Again, if they were the same thing, and you've essentially said this yourself, CC attacks would always be -1 to the damage table.

So an AP value of "--" is in fact quite different from whatever you want to call what it is that CC attacks have.


All that proves is that shooting and close combat attacks are completely different things. Maybe if someone could shoot a chainsword and it didn't get -1 on the vehicle damage table then you might have a point. But as it stands you don't.

An analogy might be 'fax numbers'. If asked on a form for my fax number I might put down N/A (not applicable).

You are trying to argue that N/A is in fact my fax number. But it isn't because I don't have a fax number. Hell I don't even have a fax machine. Try sending a fax to N/A and see if i get it.

"-" just means "no value", the rule book even says exactly that.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 19:35:58


Post by: SaintHazard


Except that "--" and "no value" do NOT mean the same thing exactly in shooting, that's the thing.

For example, purely hypothetically, if a vehicle were embarked in a transport, and the transport Exploded, the embarked vehicle would take a strength 4 hit, as if from a shooting attack, with "no AP value." Not "AP "--". "No AP value."

Does this mean the hit, if it glances or penetrates (somehow), gets a -1 to the damage table?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 19:40:44


Post by: Grakmar


SaintHazard wrote:Except that "--" and "no value" do NOT mean the same thing exactly in shooting, that's the thing.

For example, purely hypothetically, if a vehicle were embarked in a transport, and the transport Exploded, the embarked vehicle would take a strength 4 hit, as if from a shooting attack, with "no AP value." Not "AP "--". "No AP value."

Does this mean the hit, if it glances or penetrates (somehow), gets a -1 to the damage table?


Actually, Hazard, I would say yes, it does get -1 to damage.

Before this argument, I was in agreement with you. But, page 20 is rather convincing in saying "-" is identical to "no".

But, for all practical purposes, is there an actual situation where a shooting (or counts-as-shooting) attack has "no" AP value that can damage a vehicle?

Or, are you two really arguing about the definition of something that the rules don't care about because they don't matter


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 20:29:47


Post by: dayve110


Grakmar wrote:But, for all practical purposes, is there an actual situation where a shooting (or counts-as-shooting) attack has "no" AP value that can damage a vehicle?

Or, are you two really arguing about the definition of something that the rules don't care about because they don't matter


Warp spiders.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 20:31:09


Post by: Grakmar


dayve110 wrote:
Grakmar wrote:But, for all practical purposes, is there an actual situation where a shooting (or counts-as-shooting) attack has "no" AP value that can damage a vehicle?

Or, are you two really arguing about the definition of something that the rules don't care about because they don't matter


Warp spiders.


Warp Spiders's guns have an AP value of "-", they don't have "no AP value"


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 20:37:14


Post by: dayve110


SmackCakes wrote:
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook wrote:A weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value


...

Warp spiders.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 20:40:49


Post by: Grakmar


dayve110 wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook wrote:A weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value


...

Warp spiders.


Haha! Ok, you got me there. I was just asking in regards to Hazard's argument (and a common belief among most of us) that "-" is different that "no AP value" because "-" means you get -1 on damage, but "no AP value" doesn't.

There are plenty of weapons with an AP of "-" that can effect vehicles, I'm just wondering if there are any weapons (or other shooting attacks) with "no AP value" that can effect vehicles.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 21:04:09


Post by: SaintHazard


Don't think so.

But then how do we justify close combat attacks not getting -1 on the vehicle damage chart?

Edit: Wait, I just thought of one. Storm Ravens can carry Dreadnoughts, can't they? BA's one of those armies I don't know as well as I wish I did, but I seem to remember something like this.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 21:14:04


Post by: Grakmar


SaintHazard wrote:
But then how do we justify close combat attacks not getting -1 on the vehicle damage chart?


Hmmm... I'll have to dive into the exact wording of any references to AP during CC and the vehicle damage rules when I get home.

GW didn't happen to think this through and include a sentence saying something like "During a CC attack, ignore any AP values for any and all purposes" did they? Or, maybe in the vehicle damage results use the term "shooting attack" rather than just "attack" in terms of the AP modifiers?


Edit: Wait... vehicles CAN ride in vehicles? In that case, what armor facing is hit if their transport explodes?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 21:22:25


Post by: SaintHazard


I'm working on that now, but let's address the Storm Raven issue. A Storm Raven can carry a Dreadnought, if I'm remembering correctly. So what happens if a Storm Raven explodes with a Dreadnought embarked? The Dreadnought takes a S4 hit with "no AP value," as if from a shooting attack.

Someone got a Blood Angels codex handy? How does it say to deal with that situation? Armor facing hit, result of a "no AP value" hit on the damage table, etc?

Edit: Just checked the FAQ, doesn't say anything. So I assume this information is in the codex somewhere.

One of the two codices I don't have. (The other being Space Wolves)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, so GW likes to be nice and ambiguous regarding the wording in the Assault, Assaulting Vehicles, and Damage Rolls sections of the rulebook. It doesn't specifically tell you to factor in any kind of AP value for close combat weapons, but that's okay because they don't have one. What it does say is this:

Page 61:

"‘AP–’ weapons
While some weapons are especially good at cutting
through heavily armoured targets, others lack the
penetrating power to destroy a vehicle easily.
Penetrating and glancing hits inflicted by a weapon
shown as ‘AP–’ suffer a modifier of -1 to the roll on the
Vehicle Damage table."

Says nothing about differentiating between shooting and CC.

Page 63:

"Armour penetration in close combat
Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as
for shooting (D6 + the Strength of the attacker). In
close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the
vehicle’s rear armour, to represent the chance of
attacking a vulnerable spot."

Says nothing about AP whatsoever.

Page 42:

"NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades,
bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to
the model using them. Remember that, in close
combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons
and so the Strength and AP of the pistol are ignored."

Only specifically references pistols.

It's notable that CCWs are never given an AP value of any kind, so it'd be accurate to say they "do not have an AP value."

Whether that can be specifically worded as weapons "with no AP value" in order to force a -1 on the vehicle damage table, though... that seems shady. The words "no AP value" are never explicitly written, as far as I can tell.

This indicates that CC attacks without an AP value are different from shooting attacks with AP value "--".


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 22:02:19


Post by: Saldiven


I've read this entire thread, and I still can't understand how we got from a debate as to whether touching=covering to whether or not AP - equals No AP.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 22:04:43


Post by: SaintHazard


Saldiven wrote:I've read this entire thread, and I still can't understand how we got from a debate as to whether touching=covering to whether or not AP - equals No AP.

Actually, it started with a question about disembarking from a vehicle moving at Cruising speed and firing weapons.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 22:09:32


Post by: Grakmar


Ok, so here's how I interpret everything. Please chime in if I've missed something.

1) An AP of "-" is the same as saying "no AP value"

2) A close combat attack doesn't have an AP value, which is the same as having a "-" AP value

3) The vehicle damage modifies requires a "weapon shows as 'AP-'" which is distinct from attacks which have "no AP value", and although they are the same thing, the modifier actually requires the weapon to explicitly list an AP of "-"

4) Seriously Blood Angels? Really? Vehicles being transported in vehicles? If I destroy the dread, does the pilot just pop out and it turns out to be Mephiston? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me they can deep strike Land Raiders by throwing them out the backs of planes.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 23:08:47


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


The BA codex says that the dread takes a Str 4 hit to the rear armor. No mention of an AP value at all.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/13 23:39:23


Post by: Oshova


But it has no AP value, which is the same as AP being "--" . . . so that must mean you get -1 on the vehicle damage table. Yeah? Obviously at S4 you're only going to glance on a 6 . . . Thus making it -2 on the damage table. But this means you could immobilise the dread on a 6, or destroy a weapon on a 5.

And if we're going to be 'logical' about this whole flamers hitting friendly models or not. Then I put it to you that surely a bunch of marines and a Dredonaught falling out of the sky would suffer some extra wounds no?

Therefor, follow the rules, not common sense. Baals can't fire their flamers forward. Friendly models are friendly models no matter what day of the week it is. And theorectically an elephant could fly if it's bones were made of Honeycomb and it sprouted wings for ears . . .

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 00:07:41


Post by: SaintHazard


I like that interpretation. "No AP value" and "AP '--'" are the same thing, but the weapon profile MUST say "AP '--'" in order to get -1 on the vehicle damage chart.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 00:27:55


Post by: frenrik


Saying "a weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value" is not the same as saying "a weapon having no amour piercing values has AP-" any more than saying "a square is a rectangle" says "a rectangle is a square"



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 01:20:03


Post by: SmackCakes


I really don't see why this is continuing. You don't need a storm raven to carry a dread, we already know they can be put inside drop pods. But it doesn't matter because the rules on page 67 of the 40k rule book say that passengers in a vehicle that explodes take a strength 4, AP- hit like a shooting attack.

The rules for pistols in CC say that AP is ignored. Whether you are using an AP1 Infernus Pistol, or an AP- las pistol, or a close combat weapon. It makes no difference. AP is not part of CC attacks. It only counts for shooting type attacks.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 06:49:48


Post by: Chinchilla


Not to mention, if laspistol in cc has ap- then pf, monstrous creatures and all normal cc attacks have ap-....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And granades


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 07:13:10


Post by: mattyrm


Kinda crazy that g dubz hasn't swiftly made a solid reply to this, are you guys saying that in a tourney nobody will take any baal preds cos they can't fire them?

I mean, they mightn't care enough to bother normally, but that might affect sales! Cos after reading this thread, if I played BA I certainly wouldn't be buying one!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 10:37:43


Post by: Ordznik


Don't worry about it-literally no one I've ever played (including tournaments) would seriously try to stop you shooting the gun on a tank on grounds like these.

Arguments like this are fodder for YMDC to amuse itself, and not much more.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 10:54:02


Post by: mattyrm


I would hope so, but if you get a raw whore and a judge that agrees.....


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 12:48:07


Post by: Chinchilla


Don't worry... Like they said, no1 will try to argue with you... But if they do, call Gwar and ask him to raw away half of his list


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 13:15:26


Post by: SaintHazard


Well that's why we have wonderful people like Gwar! writing constructive and helpful FAQs that not only clarify the rules that, strictly speaking, don't work the way they should, but also simply rules-change the ones that don't work at all so that they do.

Seriously people, his FAQs are a work of art. If only GW had someone capable of writing an FAQ like that. Play by his FAQs, and you won't have TFGs doing things like claiming your Baal predator can't fire its template weapon or that your Dark Eldar can't fleet because Fleet is a Universal Special Rule, not a Special Rule.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 15:22:48


Post by: Saldiven


SaintHazard wrote:
Saldiven wrote:I've read this entire thread, and I still can't understand how we got from a debate as to whether touching=covering to whether or not AP - equals No AP.

Actually, it started with a question about disembarking from a vehicle moving at Cruising speed and firing weapons.


Now I'm even more confused.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 15:29:14


Post by: Chinchilla


Best part imo was whole discussion about squares and rectangles

Actually, it was my fault... I didn't want to start new topic, and this one was close enough, and I asked if you can fire flamer from the rhino... And when Gwar told me it was that silly raw thingy that you can't, I asked if it was thingy like flamer mounted on vehicle that can't fire (in other words, something that GW epic failed in writing rules or do people actually play this way)... Perhaps I should have compared it with eyeless non-vehicle models that can't fire ranged weapons because they can't measure range from firers eyes


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 15:32:41


Post by: SaintHazard


Chinchilla wrote:Best part imo was whole discussion about squares and rectangles

Actually, it was my fault... I didn't want to start new topic, and this one was close enough, and I asked if you can fire flamer from the rhino... And when Gwar told me it was that silly raw thingy that you can't, I asked if it was thingy like flamer mounted on vehicle that can't fire (in other words, something that GW epic failed in writing rules or do people actually play this way)... Perhaps I should have compared it with eyeless non-vehicle models that can't fire ranged weapons because they can't measure range from firers eyes

You mean they can't draw LOS from the firing model's eyes. You measure range from the model's base.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 15:35:30


Post by: Oshova


And ofcourse you can't model eyes onto a model, as this would OBVIOUSLY be modelling for advantage.

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 15:38:26


Post by: SaintHazard


Oshova wrote:And ofcourse you can't model eyes onto a model, as this would OBVIOUSLY be modelling for advantage.

Oshova

And in the strictest sense, Tyranids don't have eyes - they have organs that function similarly to eyes, but being aliens, they're probably called "glrblrbrgrlgrgbrlglblbl" or something.

Tau also don't have eyes. They have O'myr'mok'tun'shos'lav'pok'teel. You're not allowed to check LOS from the model's "O'myr'mok'tun'shos'lav'pok'teel"!

Orks have "dem fings wut lets da Boyz see wut dey's shootin' at!"

Humans are the only ones with actual eyes!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 15:38:51


Post by: Chinchilla


No sry, not range... I meant you can't check just los
brb, p. 16: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to the any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit..."

So no eyes, no los, no firing

But ofc, who plays that way


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 16:46:14


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:Well that's why we have wonderful people like Gwar! writing constructive and helpful FAQs that not only clarify the rules that, strictly speaking, don't work...


That's complete BS. Gwar is obviously very passionate about the rules, but half the time he just goes around spreading stupid misinformation, and you help him.

In the last few days he has told me:

You are not allowed to check LoS outside of the shooting phase.

But it's completely untrue. No where in the rulebook does it say that you can't check LoS any time you like. In fact just looking at the game table will often be enough to check LoS, are you seriously going to tell me that it's against the rules to look at the gaming table?. The rulebook expects you to draw a LoS for Rage and for deploying Scouts. This is not an example of the USRs not working, it's an example of Gwar being an idiot.

Template weapons can only touch the gun barrel when fired from a vehicle

Again completely untrue, the vehicle rules don't even mention templates, let alone say what they can and cannot touch. The template rules clearly say the template can touch the firing model. The predator is the firing model, so there is no problem with it shooting forward. We don't need Gwar to rewrite this rule, it already works fine. He just deliberately misinterprets it to be a smart ass.

"AP-" weapons do have an AP value

According to Gwar. But according to the actual rules (if any of you would like to read them) page 20 > armour piercing weapons> "A weapon show as having AP- has no AP value". Then I have SaintHazzard try to worm his way out of what is clearly printed in black and white for another 2 pages.

I think Gwar should be one of the most helpful users on this board. But instead of using his knowledge of the rules like a torch, to guide people in the right direction. He uses his knowledge of the rules like a torch to shine in everyone's eyes and be a dick with.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 16:54:22


Post by: Oshova


What you have to realise is Gwar! is a Trolle . . . and as such derives fun from pointing out miniscule fallacies within the rules. And personally I derive fun from reading his statements, knowing full well that no-one in their right mind would ever play it that way.

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 17:05:16


Post by: SmackCakes


That's all very well and good. I enjoy reading about rules that GW messed up too. But what bugs me, is that when he can't find any minuscule fallacies he just makes some up! Then tries to convince everyone that perfectly functioning rules are somehow unplayable... And the scary thing is half of the people don't even seem to bother to go check for themselves.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 17:09:02


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:That's all very well and good. I enjoy reading about rules that GW messed up too. But what bugs me, is that when he can't find any minuscule fallacies he just makes some up! Then tries to convince everyone that perfectly functioning rules are somehow unplayable... And the scary thing is half of the people don't even seem to bother to go check for themselves.

So you've never read his FAQs, then?

Because if you'd ever bothered to read his FAQs, you'd realize that you haven't said a single true thing in your last two posts.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 17:39:07


Post by: SmackCakes


Apart from all the examples I provided were 100% true.

Besides; I have my own rule book which I am perfectly capable of reading an understanding. What on earth do I need Gwar's FAQ for?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 17:39:59


Post by: nosferatu1001


Smackcakes - you are saying you cant find a rule saying you cant, so you can?

Hilarious.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 17:42:25


Post by: SaintHazard


nosferatu1001 wrote:Smackcakes - you are saying you cant find a rule saying you cant, so you can?

Hilarious.

That's what he's saying, yeah.

He's got a condition called Idontliketheserulesitis. Symptoms include making up rules and drastically changing the way the entire ruleset works because the rules don't meet your tastes.

Just about every time he opens his mouth in a YMDC thread, he says something ridiculous and completely untrue, with no written rules to back up his claims.

It gets tiresome.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:06:02


Post by: SmackCakes


nosferatu1001 wrote:Smackcakes - you are saying you cant find a rule saying you cant, so you can?

Hilarious.


So your take is... the rules don't say you can so you can't?

That is equally ridiculous, the rules don't say you can breath while playing, so you can't?

The rules ask you check LoS for deploying infiltrators. Which is outside of shooting. Gwar saying you can't check LoS outside of shooting is what is hilarious.

SaintHazzard wrote:
Just about every time he opens his mouth in a YMDC thread, he says something ridiculous and completely untrue, with no written rules to back up his claims.

It gets tiresome.


That is a lie, and you're a bad person for saying it :(

At least I actually read my rule book, and don't just go around being superfluous and repeating everything that Gwar! says.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:08:35


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Smackcakes - you are saying you cant find a rule saying you cant, so you can?

Hilarious.


So your take is... the rules don't say you can so you can't?

That is equally ridiculous, the rules don't say you can breath while playing, so you can't?

The rules ask you check LoS for deploying infiltrators. Which is outside of shooting. Gwar saying you can't check LoS outside of shooting is what is hilarious.

Unless you have specific permission to do so. For example, infiltrators!

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:10:57


Post by: Chinchilla


Now now... No need to get nasty... It's just pure fun and relaxing to make fun of GW since there are many things they should do and they don't (like make a nice FAQ)...


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:11:50


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Smackcakes - you are saying you cant find a rule saying you cant, so you can?

Hilarious.


So your take is... the rules don't say you can so you can't?

That is equally ridiculous, the rules don't say you can breath while playing, so you can't?

The rules ask you check LoS for deploying infiltrators. Which is outside of shooting. Gwar saying you can't check LoS outside of shooting is what is hilarious.

Unless you have specific permission to do so. For example, infiltrators!

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.


Infiltrators... and Rage. Why am I wrong? Gwar was the one saying Rage was broken because you can't check LoS outside of shooting. Thanks for proving Gwar wrong.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:25:18


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:Infiltrators... and Rage. Why am I wrong? Gwar was the one saying Rage was broken because you can't check LoS outside of shooting. Thanks for proving Gwar wrong.

Because Rage doesn't give you permission to check LOS, but forces you to perform an action that requires checking LOS. So you don't have permission to perform the action, but Rage forces you to. The game breaks, the universe implodes.

On the other hand, Infiltrating specifically allows you to check LOS outside the shooting phase. Specific permission makes it an exception to the general rule that you cannot check LOS outside the shooting phase.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:27:49


Post by: nosferatu1001


Smackcakes - the ruleset is based on telling you what you CAN do in the game. For example infantry CAN move up to 6" per movement phase. They very rarely tell you what you CANNOT do in the game.

Your example is irrelevant as "breathing" has no in game function.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:50:40


Post by: MekanobSamael


SmackCakes wrote:So your take is... the rules don't say you can so you can't?

That is equally ridiculous, the rules don't say you can breath while playing, so you can't?
That would be why they're called "rules" rather than "suggestions."


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:52:46


Post by: SmackCakes


nosferatu1001 wrote:Smackcakes - the ruleset is based on telling you what you CAN do in the game. For example infantry CAN move up to 6" per movement phase. They very rarely tell you what you CANNOT do in the game.

Your example is irrelevant as "breathing" has no in game function.


I'm not sure I can agree, I can think of a number of situations where they lay the rules out explaining both what you can and cannot do. Such as: you can't shoot at the occupants of a transport with the same unit that blew up the transport. You can't move within an inch of enemy units outside assault etc... 'May and 'May not' are used with equal frequency.

if we can't be sensible enough to agree that the rules allow us to breath during the game, and allow us to look at the playing table. Then what is the point of even talking about rules.

Checking line of sight is looking at the gaming table... It's not against the rules. People who say it is have no right to call others ridiculous, hilarious, and untrue. They are the ones who are being stupid.



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 18:58:06


Post by: Chinchilla


prohibitions are used only when there is general rule that this specific rule has to deny... Such as, there is rule that allows you to move 6'' in movement phase... Since it allows you to move 6'' it would allow you to move within 1'', so they made rule to disallow it... But there must be rule in the first place that allow you to do something in general to be prohibition to make it in specific situation...


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:01:48


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:I'm not sure I can agree, I can think of a number of situations where they lay the rules out explaining both what you can and cannot do.

As exceptions to the rules that say you can.

SmackCakes wrote:you can't shoot at the occupants of a transport with the same unit that blew up the transport.

Because you can't shoot at multiple units, as an exception to the rule, "You can shoot at units."

SmackCakes wrote:You can't move within an inch of enemy units

As an exception to the rule that states "you can move."

SmackCakes wrote:outside assault etc...

Never stated in the rules. Instead, you CAN do it with an assault move, as an EXCEPTION to the general rule that you cannot, which is, in itself, an EXCEPTION to the even more general rule that you can move at all.

SmackCakes wrote:Checking line of sight is looking at the gaming table... It's not against the rules. People who say it is have no right to call others ridiculous, hilarious, and untrue. They are the ones who are being stupid.

No, "looking at the gaming table" is "looking at the gaming table." "Checking LOS" is "looking at the gaming table in such a way that allows you to see whether or not your models have LOS."

So far you haven't said anything that proves your point. You've taken several permissions out of context and turned them into restrictions, and you are trying to say that you can do whatever the hell you want because there are specific exceptional restrictions that exist in the rule.

Which is absurd.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:29:27


Post by: SmackCakes


As an exception to the rule that states "you can move."


You can check LoS, where is the exception that says you can't check LoS in the movement phase?

You are the one being absurd trying to find restrictions where there are none.

My argument is not that you can do anything so long as the rules don't say you can't. That is just a straw man version of my argument that you created.

My argument is that there is nothing that specifically restricts LoS to the shooting phase. And there is plenty of stuff, such as USR which require you to check LoS outside the shooting phase. Rage is not broken, what is broken is your ridiculous and unhelpful notion about how LoS works. Which I'm sure you don't even believe yourself, you just want to continue arguing a stupid point for the sake of it.

And you call me absurd...

No, "looking at the gaming table" is "looking at the gaming table." "Checking LOS" is "looking at the gaming table in such a way that allows you to see whether or not your models have LOS."


Which for most situations just means 'looking at the table'.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:31:13


Post by: SaintHazard


SmackCakes wrote:You can check LoS, where is the exception that says you can't check LoS in the movement phase?

There is no general rule that says "you can check LOS."

There is a general rule that says "you can check LOS in the shooting phase."

Therefore, no specific restriction is required for checking LOS in the movement phase.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:33:32


Post by: Chinchilla


There is no rule that says I can't remove your models from table... Does that mean that the fastest-removing-models-from-table player wins by annihilation rule?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:37:47


Post by: SaintHazard


There's also no rule that says I can't shove all of your miniatures off the table and claim victory because you have "no units left on the table."

Can I do that, SmackCakes?

By your warped logic, that's perfectly legal.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:43:13


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:There is a general rule that says "you can check LOS in the shooting phase."


No there isn't. In the shooting phase it asks you to check LoS before shooting. That is all.

There is no rule on when you can or cannot check line of sight. So you can check line of sight at any time, providing you have the ability to see.

Chinchilla wrote:There is no rule that says I can't remove your models from table... Does that mean that the fastest-removing-models-from-table player wins by annihilation rule?


As I have already said Chinchilla. You are only attacking a straw man version of my argument which you created. If you can't address my real argument then don't bother.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:45:15


Post by: BlueDagger


There is nothing that states you can check LoS, but lets be serious that is ridiculously hard to enforce.

"Guy sets his tank down behind a rock while looking from it's rear."
"Dude no checking LoS"
"I'm not checking LoS I'm making sure it is carefully set down as gently as possible as not to scratch my paint"

Wiping out a measure tape between two locations is one thing, looking at the board is a whole different thing. "Don't sit down on that chair, you'll be able to see your LoS"


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:46:04


Post by: SaintHazard


That IS your real argument. "It doesn't say you can't, so you can."

That's the crux of your entire argument.

So, again, I ask you - can I sweep all of your minis off the table and declare victory, because there is no rule that says I can't?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:47:28


Post by: Oshova


No no no you have this all wrong . . . I can move, shoot, and assault yes? But if I can check LOS whenever I like (because it doesn't say I can't) . . . Then I'm going to shoot your models in your movement phase, or assault them in your shooting phase. Does it specifically say I can't?

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:57:19


Post by: kirsanth


Shamelessly ripped from another thread. . . .


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 19:59:42


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:That IS your real argument. "It doesn't say you can't, so you can."

That's the crux of your entire argument.

So, again, I ask you - can I sweep all of your minis off the table and declare victory, because there is no rule that says I can't?


That is not my argument. That is a misrepresentation of my argument that you have created to argue against so that you don't have to address my real argument.

It is a well known logical fallacy that has been around for thousands of years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Sadly it doesn't prove anything.

To set things straight. I do not believe that just because the rule book does not say I can't do something. It therefore means I can. I do not believe I can remove models from the board, or give a terminator a jump pack, just because the rules don't say I can't.

I do believe that LoS in something you can see any time you like. There is nothing in the rule book that connects it solely to the shooting phase, other the fact that the shooting phase in 1 occasion when you are expected to check LoS. Rage and Infiltrate are others.

You guys claim LoS checking is restricted only to the shooting phase. This is unsupported by the rules.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:01:34


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


Moving, SHooting and Assaulting are clearly separated into their own phases and must be kept in those phases. It's an entirely different argument from LoS.

As for the Line of Signt Argument, it only says you need to check line of sight when shooting, it doesnt say you cant check it at all during any other time. The basis of your argument is also based on the fact that it didnt say you could check it in any other phase, so you cant.

However, you really shouldnt be checking LoS as detail in the book outside of the shooting phase anyways. Outside of the Shooting Phase, "checking LoS" can simply mean if your model can conceivably "see" enemy units, which is sorta different from normal LoS. Normal LoS requires you to actually see a physical body part of the target (since that's used to determine whether or not you can actually harm him), while "seeing" an enemy model due to Rage can be simply their gigantic banner. There's no doubt a raging DC can see a guy with a huge banner and knows that there's a crunchy victim attached to said banner. That's my current take on it based on what I have read here.

EDIT: the first half of the post isnt directly directed at you SmackCakes. You are a fast poster >.>


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:03:52


Post by: SaintHazard


You just contradicted yourself. You can't check LOS any time you want. How many instances does it specifically tell you to check LOS? I can think of two. The first is in the shooting phase, where you have specific instructions to check LOS. The second in infiltrators, where you have specific instructions to check LOS.

The fact that there are only two instances where it specifically tells you to check LOS doesn't tell you that there are only two instances where you may check LOS?

If not, then we have to surmise that your argument is akin to "It doesn't say I can't check LOS outside of where it tells me to check LOS, so I can check LOS anytime I want."

You said that exact thing in your previous post.

That translates easily to "I can because it doesn't say I can't."

This is not a strawman argument, this is exactly what you're saying, and then saying you're not saying, and then saying again.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:04:58


Post by: Oshova


All good logic. But sadly not backed up by the rules. You need LOS (as defined by the rulebook) to be able to see anyone. It could be the whole model, or their left foot. But you need to have LOS to see the model to do anything to said model.

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:11:16


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


...then wouldnt that mean any rule that calls for visibility require LoS by default?

Also, I think there's a miscommunication here somewhere. One half is arguing that you may check LoS when you need to regardless of phase, while the other half is arguing that you cant simply check LoS whenever you want without a reason, but only when it's a necessity. Both are largely unrelated arguments that got completely derailed into whether or not you're allowed to check LoS in any other phase (which is allowed if a specific rule requires it, otherwise part of the special rules just caught itself in a loophole wedgie).


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:15:39


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:That translates easily to "I can because it doesn't say I can't."


In this instance yes. Rage asks you to check for the nearest visible unit. There is no restriction that says you cannot check for the nearest visible unit, so the rule is not broken. Rage asks you to check > you check > the rule works.

What you presented were other harder to defend examples where the rules do not expressly forbid an action. That is the very definition of a strw man. Reverting to straw men is not uncommon for people with a weak argument.



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:16:51


Post by: SaintHazard


MechaEmperor7000 wrote:...then wouldnt that mean any rule that calls for visibility require LoS by default?

Also, I think there's a miscommunication here somewhere. One half is arguing that you may check LoS when you need to regardless of phase, while the other half is arguing that you cant simply check LoS whenever you want without a reason, but only when it's a necessity. Both are largely unrelated arguments that got completely derailed into whether or not you're allowed to check LoS in any other phase (which is allowed if a specific rule requires it, otherwise part of the special rules just caught itself in a loophole wedgie).

Except that Rage does not give you permission to check LOS, merely tells you to move towards the closest visible enemy unit. It doesn't say that you can determine what is and is not visible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SmackCakes wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:That translates easily to "I can because it doesn't say I can't."


In this instance yes. Rage asks you to check for the nearest visible unit. There is no restriction that says you cannot check for the nearest visible unit, so the rule is not broken. Rage asks you to check > you check > the rule works.

What you presented were other harder to defend examples where the rules do not expressly forbid an action. That is the very definition of a strw man. Reverting to straw men is not uncommon for people with a weak argument.

Read the rules for Rage again. It does not ask you to check.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:21:17


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:
Except that Rage does not give you permission to check LOS, merely tells you to move towards the closest visible enemy unit. It doesn't say that you can determine what is and is not visible.


So according to you, you are not allowed to look at the table and see which enemy unit is the nearest visible unit. Even though rage asks you to move towards the nearest visible unit?

The rules also ask you to move your units, but does not expressly give you permission to touch them. Does that mean moving units is broken too?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:24:08


Post by: Oshova


Saint Hazard, how about you quote the 2 rules (Rage and Infiltrate) so that you can point out the differences that allow you to check LOS or not? =D

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:27:01


Post by: Frazzled


Modquisition on. Lets all play nice now.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:38:10


Post by: SaintHazard


Oshova wrote:Saint Hazard, how about you quote the 2 rules (Rage and Infiltrate) so that you can point out the differences that allow you to check LOS or not? =D

Oshova

Can do.

"RAGE
Some warriors are little more than mindless killing
machines, incapable of rational thought and only
interested in getting to grips with the enemy as soon as
possible. In the Movement phase, units subject to rage
must always move as fast as possible towards the
closest visible enemy. In the Shooting phase, they are
free to decide whether to run, but if they do they must
run towards the closest visible enemy. In the Assault
phase they must always consolidate towards the closest
visible enemy
. Whilst falling back, embarked on a
transport, or if no enemy is visible, they ignore this rule."

Nowhere does it say "check LOS to see which enemies are visible." Therefore, it tells you to move towards the closest visible enemy with no permission to check visibility, and since no enemy is visible (since you never checked visibility), the rule is ignored.

"INFILTRATE*
In the right circumstances, stealthy troops have the
ability to work their way into a forward position on the
battlefield or outflank enemy lines.
Units with this special rule are deployed last, after all
other units (friends and foe) have been deployed. If
both sides have infiltrators, the players roll-off and the
winner decides who goes first, and then alternate
deploying these units. Infiltrators may be set up
anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any
enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can
draw a line of sight to them
. This includes inside a
building (see page 83), as long as the building is more
than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they may
be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 18"
from any enemy unit, even in plain sight."

Here, it simply says you cannot place an infiltrator within 18" of an enemy model that can draw line of sight to them. If the unit is capable of drawing LOS (it is not specific as to when - for example, if the unit can draw line of sight in the next Shooting phase, it can draw line of sight - the condition is met) then they may not be placed within 18".

The difference is "can draw line of sight" and "is visible." The first asks you if it can draw line of sight under conditions that allow it to do so. The second asks you if it has line of sight right then and there.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:42:46


Post by: Oshova


Personally I can't see the difference between the two. Surely they both require you to check LOS there and then. =p

One says "Draw LOS" the other says "Visible" so I don't know why you're allowed to draw LOS when it's not the shooting phase . . . Because it specifically says "Draw LOS"?

Just looking for clarification.

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 20:50:38


Post by: SaintHazard


No problem.

Both have a set of conditions that have to be met, right? We can agree on that.

Infiltrate requires that the enemy model be able to draw LOS. It doesn't say it has to draw LOS right then and there, just that it has to be able to draw LOS. If the enemy model can draw LOS in the next shooting phase, were the infiltrating model still standing there, then the enemy model is capable of drawing LOS on the infiltrating model. If so, the model cannot be placed within 18" of the enemy model. If not, the infiltrating model can be placed within 18" of the enemy model, but no closer than 12".

Rage requires the enemy unit to be visible. In order for the enemy unit to be visible, you have to draw LOS. Right then and there. Not next week, not in the next shooting phase, but right then. If the unit with Rage cannot draw LOS (for example, there is no unit to draw LOS on, or the unit with Rage does not have permission to CHECK LOS) then the rule is ignored. Since the rule attempts to ascertain whether a unit is visible in instances where it does not have permission to draw LOS (such as the Movement and Assault phases), it is ignored entirely except in the Shooting phase - and even then, checking LOS is not a step before running, so it's ignored again.

Infiltrate requires that the enemy model be capable of drawing LOS.

Rage requires that you have drawn LOS.

Does that make the distinction more... distinct?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:14:25


Post by: SmackCakes


SaintHazard wrote:Rage requires the enemy unit to be visible. In order for the enemy unit to be visible, you have to draw LOS. Right then and there. Not next week, not in the next shooting phase, but right then. If the unit with Rage cannot draw LOS (for example, there is no unit to draw LOS on, or the unit with Rage does not have permission to CHECK LOS) then the rule is ignored. Since the rule attempts to ascertain whether a unit is visible in instances where it does not have permission to draw LOS (such as the Movement and Assault phases), it is ignored entirely except in the Shooting phase - and even then, checking LOS is not a step before running, so it's ignored again.


You don't need permission to check LoS. You're doing it wrong.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:15:14


Post by: SaintHazard


There you go again.

"I can check LOS because nothing says I can't."

Nothing says you can, either.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:17:46


Post by: SmackCakes


But it's quite obvious that I can... try and stop me? Are you going to call over a TO use your ridiculous argument to get me DQed? They would just laugh at you.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:18:50


Post by: Frazzled


I think you two are at an empasse. You might agree to disagree at this point.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:19:47


Post by: SmackCakes


I agree that I disagree...

I'm out.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:19:51


Post by: Frazzled


SmackCakes wrote:But it's quite obvious that I can... try and stop me? Are you going to call over a TO use your ridiculous argument to get me DQed? They would just laugh at you.

This is a warning. Ratchet it down or you will be suspended. Politeness is required.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:22:18


Post by: SaintHazard


"Try and stop you"? Seriously? That's your justification for breaking the rules? "You can't stop me from cheating, so I'm going to cheat" ?

I'm glad we've finally boiled this down to what it really is.

You want to break the rules, but the rules won't let you (surprise!), so you're just going to barrel on ahead and try and get away with it anyway.

You do that.

See how it works out for you.

(Maybe almost as well as the ridiculous argument you've put forward here, which, you'll notice, nobody is supporting.)


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:27:38


Post by: Frazzled


SaintHazard wrote:"Try and stop you"? Seriously? That's your justification for breaking the rules? "You can't stop me from cheating, so I'm going to cheat" ?

I'm glad we've finally boiled this down to what it really is.

You want to break the rules, but the rules won't let you (surprise!), so you're just going to barrel on ahead and try and get away with it anyway.

You do that.

See how it works out for you.

(Maybe almost as well as the ridiculous argument you've put forward here, which, you'll notice, nobody is supporting.)


Same warning to you saint hazard as you posted this after my public statement. Ratchet it down or you will be suspended. Compliance is not optional. You push me on this at your peril.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:32:35


Post by: SmackCakes


There are certain things I can always do like breath an move, and touch my figures, and check LoS. And I do not need permission from the rules to do them. But if I do that does not make them cheating.

@ Frazzled. Why do I get a warning? Saint and Gwar! troll this board 24/7 with the most inane stuff. Just because I won't get bullied off a totally fair stance on how the rules work, versus a wall of blind stubbornness. I get threatened with suspension? Shame on you. :(


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:35:10


Post by: SaintHazard


You know what? I think we're done here.

Again, your "try and stop me" comment kind of killed any credibility you may have had.

Cheat all you want. I want nothing to do with it.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:48:28


Post by: Frazzled


Modquisition on.

We are indeed done here. Your account is being suspended as YOU KEPT IT UP AFTER I WARNED YOU TWICE.

private warning to follow.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 21:53:58


Post by: Saldiven


If you're locking the thread, can we get the cute Japanese girl picture, or will we have to settle for a wiener dog?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/14 22:14:12


Post by: Frazzled


Saldiven wrote:If you're locking the thread, can we get the cute Japanese girl picture, or will we have to settle for a wiener dog?

not locking, just suspending people which is eminently more satisfying.

And now, lets see if SHe Who Must Be Obeyed cleaned up the front room for guests tonight. ohh looks like she did.



Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/15 01:08:57


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


@ SaintHazard: Note that Rage said "visibility" not "line of sight". Hence you just check the visibility of the models, not the actual line of sight they can draw. On the other hand, if you assume that Line of Sight and Visibilty are the same (which you've already argued against) then you must refer back to the wording in Visibility, where the model is physically incapable of telling you what it can see, so you must, whenever called for actual Visibility, stoop down and take a look at the tabletop side.

In addition, the rules under line of sight also details that you only need to check it when it's in dispute. When the models are plainly in sight you do not need to check it. Checking it is only to confirm that a concealed model is actually not completely concealed from sight. If the model is in plain sight you do not check. I would think this fits perfectly well in with Rage, as the furious and frienzied warriors might not see or care about some coward hiding in the bush and would much rather go for the guys he can see in the clearing.

Edit: I am such a slow poster compared to you guys o.o


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/15 12:02:24


Post by: Oshova


But to dispute it all you have to do is say "I don't think it's in . . . and we can't prove it either way as that would checking LOS . . . I'll just stay where I am then."

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/15 23:29:14


Post by: Juvieus Kaine


Urm Okay so what have we actually established from the original question? I read the entire thread and couldn't find any answers, just some conflict of LoS and templates on Baal preds.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/15 23:41:58


Post by: kirsanth


It seems to have been covered on the first page, really.

Embarked models have the restriction, once disembarked they are no longer embarked models.

Unless I totally missed something.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 00:21:43


Post by: alarmingrick


I'm clear on most of what has been discussed. but 1 thing still stands out as a wee bit fuzzy.
Gwar and SaintHazard really believe it's "okay" to fire the Baals turret forward, the just say it's illegal
to point out how poorly some rules are worded and/or FAQed? either way, i always come away from
the YMTC a little more informed and with a good laugh at how worked up we can get.

@Frazzled:
did you take that pic from the Tank in the corner?!?!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 00:48:26


Post by: SaintHazard


alarmingrick wrote:I'm clear on most of what has been discussed. but 1 thing still stands out as a wee bit fuzzy.
Gwar and SaintHazard really believe it's "okay" to fire the Baals turret forward, the just say it's illegal
to point out how poorly some rules are worded and/or FAQed? either way, i always come away from
the YMTC a little more informed and with a good laugh at how worked up we can get.

@Frazzled:
did you take that pic from the Tank in the corner?!?!

That is correct. I won't speak for Gwar!, but personally I will let you fire your Baal predator's template weapon forward, over the hull. It is, however, a house rule to allow such a thing to happen. That's all. And there's nothing wrong with that! House rule away! Personally, and this is just my opinion, others may disagree, I feel like the intent of the weapon was to be used - why would they design a vehicle with a weapon that couldn't be used? Same thing for Defiler HFs, firing a flamer from a fire point on a Rhino, et cetera. All technically illegal, but I personally would not insist that you can't do it - I'd allow it.

But you gotta be clear on what that is: a house rule.

So, y'know. Arguing that it's within the standard rules is a no-no.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 01:27:36


Post by: Oshova


Yeah definitely here to have fun and laugh at the giant standing joke that is GWs rules. Saying that I also enjoy laughing at how poor Rackham's rules are, and infact just Rackham as a whole.

But that's a completely different kettle of fish =p

Oshova


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 01:32:43


Post by: SmackCakes


Good to see you back Saint. I'm sorry things got out of hand, I do respect you as poster. That's why I gots your quote as my sig.

I hope we can put this behind us.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 02:26:50


Post by: alarmingrick


SaintHazard wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:I'm clear on most of what has been discussed. but 1 thing still stands out as a wee bit fuzzy.
Gwar and SaintHazard really believe it's "okay" to fire the Baals turret forward, the just say it's illegal
to point out how poorly some rules are worded and/or FAQed? either way, i always come away from
the YMTC a little more informed and with a good laugh at how worked up we can get.

@Frazzled:
did you take that pic from the Tank in the corner?!?!

That is correct. I won't speak for Gwar!, but personally I will let you fire your Baal predator's template weapon forward, over the hull. It is, however, a house rule to allow such a thing to happen. That's all. And there's nothing wrong with that! House rule away! Personally, and this is just my opinion, others may disagree, I feel like the intent of the weapon was to be used - why would they design a vehicle with a weapon that couldn't be used? Same thing for Defiler HFs, firing a flamer from a fire point on a Rhino, et cetera. All technically illegal, but I personally would not insist that you can't do it - I'd allow it.

But you gotta be clear on what that is: a house rule.

So, y'know. Arguing that it's within the standard rules is a no-no.


thanks for the fast reply! another question(ok,2) if you don't mind. would you agree this would be an issue that should have been FAQed along time ago?
and any idea why they(GW) wouldn't? as far as my local group goes, it's never been an issue. as for the 3 "main" stores and any local tournie,s it's never
been an issue. but, a poorly worded/written rule is an arguement waiting to happen.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 02:34:41


Post by: Chinchilla


alarmingrick wrote:

thanks for the fast reply! another question(ok,2) if you don't mind. would you agree this would be an issue that should have been FAQed along time ago?
and any idea why they(GW) wouldn't? as far as my local group goes, it's never been an issue. as for the 3 "main" stores and any local tournie,s it's never
been an issue. but, a poorly worded/written rule is an arguement waiting to happen.


And why does it take the 10 years to update old dexes?
Take crons, so many broken and fuzzy rules that it just hurts... And no dex nor normal faq for a long time...


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 02:35:53


Post by: SaintHazard


alarmingrick wrote:thanks for the fast reply! another question(ok,2) if you don't mind. would you agree this would be an issue that should have been FAQed along time ago?
and any idea why they(GW) wouldn't? as far as my local group goes, it's never been an issue. as for the 3 "main" stores and any local tournie,s it's never
been an issue. but, a poorly worded/written rule is an arguement waiting to happen.

1) I agree that it should have been FAQ'd long ago.
2) It has not been FAQ'd because whoever writes the GW FAQs either 1) doesn't troll internet message boards for FAQ-able issues or 2) doesn't think they're big enough issues to address. I know our own yakface contributes a lot of the FAQ material, so I have to assume the latter, and I disagree, but I'm also not the end-all-be-all of what should and should not be FAQ'd. THAT is why I don't take the FAQs seriously. At the end of the day, they're just one way to look at the rules, and they often don't interpret the rules literally... they're no more hard material than Joe Bob the Redshirt's personal opinions on whether or not Stikkbombs have a function... regardless of what the tenets of YMDC say about them.

SmackCakes wrote:Good to see you back Saint. I'm sorry things got out of hand, I do respect you as poster. That's why I gots your quote as my sig.

I hope we can put this behind us.

Of course. Yeah, it got heated, and we both seem to get loud and obnoxious when we get pissed off.

Officially agree to disagree?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 18:52:12


Post by: Juvieus Kaine


*waving arms about* I don't get it still I'm only curious for orks in the sense that if I used a Waaagh! on the same turn.

If I did, moved the trukks flat out then disembarked, could I still run and assault on that turn alone?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 18:53:20


Post by: Gwar!


Juvieus Kaine wrote:*waving arms about* I don't get it still I'm only curious for orks in the sense that if I used a Waaagh! on the same turn.

If I did, moved the trukks flat out then disembarked, could I still run and assault on that turn alone?
You can't disembark when you move flat out, so no.

You could move cruising and do what you say though.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 20:20:44


Post by: Juvieus Kaine


Right, I'll make much note of this.
Thankyou


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 20:58:08


Post by: Golga


I think gw never designed the game to be played by people as nit picky as you all are.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/16 21:53:58


Post by: insaniak


SaintHazard wrote:2) It has not been FAQ'd because whoever writes the GW FAQs either 1) doesn't troll internet message boards for FAQ-able issues or 2) doesn't think they're big enough issues to address.


Number 2 would be my guess on the template thing. It's blatently obvious that a vehicle with a template weapon in the turret is supposed to be able to use it. GW have a bit of a history of ignoring 'issues' like that. Just depends on who winds up writing the FAQ...


THAT is why I don't take the FAQs seriously. At the end of the day, they're just one way to look at the rules, and they often don't interpret the rules literally... they're no more hard material than Joe Bob the Redshirt's personal opinions on whether or not Stikkbombs have a function... regardless of what the tenets of YMDC say about them.


For what it's worth, the tenets of YMDC accept the FAQ's as official rules simply because we've found that the vast majority of players do the same. They're clarifications from the writers of the game which, for most players, is good enough.

You're welcome to ignore them in your own games, obviously. But taking a stance one way or the other on their standing as rules allows us to avoid the pointless, unending arguments about whether or not they matter in a rules discussion... and we went with what appears to be the majority view as being the most productive one.


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/17 02:56:40


Post by: Chinchilla


insaniak wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:2) It has not been FAQ'd because whoever writes the GW FAQs either 1) doesn't troll internet message boards for FAQ-able issues or 2) doesn't think they're big enough issues to address.


Number 2 would be my guess on the template thing. It's blatently obvious that a vehicle with a template weapon in the turret is supposed to be able to use it. GW have a bit of a history of ignoring 'issues' like that. Just depends on who winds up writing the FAQ...


There are still very important things that GW doesn't adress and IS important... Nvm templates, what about certain units that have broken rule, certain out-of-date codexes (what about necrons? I know that raw would be that lith can't attack when moving 12'', warriors can't WBB when sweeped, but what did they have in mind?)... Not to mention that there are some stupid rules that are obvious...
My all time favorite, blood angels faq, and I quote: " Does the storm bolter on baal predator really cost 10pts?"

I mean cmon! We can figure that out alone... Tell us something that you intended for unit but clumsy written rules don't allow!


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/17 08:13:51


Post by: insaniak


Chinchilla wrote:(what about necrons? I know that raw would be that lith can't attack when moving 12'',

Monoliths can't move 12".


warriors can't WBB when sweeped, but what did they have in mind?)

What about that needs clarification? Necrons have never been able to make a WBB roll after being subject to a Sweeping Advance.


My all time favorite, blood angels faq, and I quote: " Does the storm bolter on baal predator really cost 10pts?"

Which FAQ was that from?


Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/17 08:32:31


Post by: Gwar!


insaniak wrote:
My all time favorite, blood angels faq, and I quote: " Does the storm bolter on baal predator really cost 10pts?"

Which FAQ was that from?
I think it's from mine, because the way it is worded in the BA Codex lets you take a SB and a HK for 10 points.

BA.94.02 – Q: Blood Angels Predators have the option to take “a Storm Bolter and/or a Hunter Killer Missile” for +x points. Does this mean you can get “a Storm Bolter and a Hunter Killer Missile” for only x points or must you purchase each one separately?
A: Each upgrade is paid for separately. So a Storm Bolter is +x points, a Hunter Killer Missile is +x points and to take both means you must pay +x points twice. [Rules Change]
  • By the strict letter of the rules, a Blood Angels Predator can purchase both for only +x points.


  • Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/17 11:34:50


    Post by: Chinchilla


    It's the faq attached to ba white dwarf codex, at the end of it...


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 07:06:37


    Post by: LordWaffles


    The Green Git wrote:you'd be right, you'd also still be a dick.


    Really this is how ninety percent of rules questions get finished on Dakka.

    I cannot fathom what toll that must have on the game as a whole.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 07:29:32


    Post by: lucasbuffalo


    I think that the only reason there is even arguing in this thread at all is that there are 2 kinds of people in it. There are:

    A. People who wish to use the rules to guide them through a functional game where things make sense and logic is occasionally used. They are more interested in the spirit of the law than the letter and want to make the game work and be enjoyable, flaws and all.

    and
    B. People who wish to use the rules as a strict set of guide lines not matter how dis-functional and unplayable it makes the game. They are STRICTLY interested in what is written and follow the letter of the law even when all that doing so would accomplish is to make the game pointless.

    I think that following the rules is important. I bought a rule book before I bought my first bit of plastic for this game as I like to follow the rules. However, when it comes to things like telling an opponent that you're being "generous" by letter him do what his unit is intended to do is just ludicrous. I would NEVER hold my opponent to something like the Baal Predator template argument or accuse him/her of cheating if for using a model as it was intended to be used.
    This is all my humble opinion, though I know many would disagree with it, but I think when we've gotten to the point where being "right with the rules" is more important than playing a fun, functional, and fair match of Warhammer, then we aren't playing Warhammer anymore. We're playing Plastic Ruleshammer 40: The Age of Pointlessness.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 07:35:53


    Post by: LordWaffles


    lucasbuffalo wrote:
    A. Little crying babies

    and
    B. Amazing geniuses that are so badass they follow rules.


    Your post wasn't dakkadakka enough so I cleaned it up for you.

    But yeah outside of bias you hit the nail on the head. Neither group can be incorrect, for while the B category might have a rule spot on and read to the letter, they're still nerds. And group A is trying to have fun with plastic spacemen, thus more nerds.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 07:37:18


    Post by: Gwar!


    Except that he is being Generous.

    You may not like it, hell, even I don't like it, but that is what the RaW says, no two ways about it.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 07:47:44


    Post by: lucasbuffalo


    Gwar! wrote:Except that he is being Generous.

    You may not like it, hell, even I don't like it, but that is what the RaW says, no two ways about it.


    I dunno. I don't think "generous" and "fair/reasonable" are the same thing.
    But again, I'm from group A. I'd rather have a fun game I can play with other humans without pointless arguments that defy logic for the sake of rules.

    LordWaffles wrote:


    But yeah outside of bias you hit the nail on the head. Neither group can be incorrect, for while the B category might have a rule spot on and read to the letter, they're still nerds. And group A is trying to have fun with plastic spacemen, thus more nerds.


    I dunno. I'd say people who are arguing the logistics of a game about plastic space men game are slightly bigger nerds than people playing it.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 07:52:32


    Post by: Gwar!


    I have fun by playing a game by the rules.

    Would you consider it fun if I decided I wanted all my Grey Hunters to have 10 Attacks?

    No, because that is not following the rules.

    Do you have fun by having to argue rules game every single time? Do you have fun by being forced to go through a pre-game prep longer than the game itself because of unclear rules>

    Yeah, that's what I thought.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:08:10


    Post by: lucasbuffalo


    Gwar! wrote:I have fun by playing a game by the rules.

    Would you consider it fun if I decided I wanted all my Grey Hunters to have 10 Attacks?

    No, because that is not following the rules.

    Do you have fun by having to argue rules game every single time? Do you have fun by being forced to go through a pre-game prep longer than the game itself because of unclear rules>

    Yeah, that's what I thought.


    Your argument is childish and you should know that.
    Of course Grey Hunters don't have 10 attacks, this is a stupid comparison to the question at hand as 10 attacks it not what the model was created to do. They don't carry a flag that says "I have ten attacks." To say that a model can't do what it was created to do (in this case, shoot the gun it comes with) then I'd say you are preventing the game from being fun for the sake of following
    an arbitrary lack of clarity in rules. I could consider agreeing that the rules states it can't shoot, though I like SmackCakes argument, but my point is that considering it generosity to "allow" the shot is a self-righteous argument. You're basically calling the creators of the Baal Predator morons for creating the unit without considering that people would beat it with the RaR stick. I think that the argument is clearly just to be a jerk, as I'd think that arguing that a model can't shoot the gun it comes with would cause more problems and delays in games playing out than it would solve.
    As this thread, I think, proves nicely.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:10:56


    Post by: insaniak


    Gwar! wrote:Would you consider it fun if I decided I wanted all my Grey Hunters to have 10 Attacks?

    No, because that is not following the rules.

    I wouldn't consider it fun, but because it would be hideously unbalanced, not because it's not following the rules. If we agree to play that way, it is following the rules.


    Do you have fun by having to argue rules game every single time? Do you have fun by being forced to go through a pre-game prep longer than the game itself because of unclear rules>

    That's more an issue with the state of the rules than people's choice to follow them or not.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:21:21


    Post by: Gwar!


    lucasbuffalo wrote:You're basically calling the creators of the Baal Predator morons for creating the unit without considering that people would beat it with the RaW stick.
    No, I am not. The creators clearly intended for it to be unable to fire. Otherwise they would not have made the gun as it is. Considering the lack of any form of errata to the rules, there can be no other assumption.

    That being said, even if they didn't intend and are indeed, as you so claim, morons, that doesn't change the fact that the rules are clear and that arbitrarily changing them leads down a slippery slope.
    insaniak wrote:
    Gwar! wrote:Would you consider it fun if I decided I wanted all my Grey Hunters to have 10 Attacks?

    No, because that is not following the rules.

    I wouldn't consider it fun, but because it would be hideously unbalanced, not because it's not following the rules. If we agree to play that way, it is following the rules.


    Do you have fun by having to argue rules game every single time? Do you have fun by being forced to go through a pre-game prep longer than the game itself because of unclear rules>

    That's more an issue with the state of the rules than people's choice to follow them or not.
    I am talking about the rules in the Rulebook, not some crazy house rules. By the rules in the rulebook (disregarding TMIR which simply breaks the game), grey Hunters do not have 10 attacks, Baals cannot fire their turret and Grots are only T2. To say otherwise is not following the rules.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:32:52


    Post by: lucasbuffalo


    Gwar! wrote:No, I am not. The creators clearly intended for it to be unable to fire. Otherwise they would not have made the gun as it is. Considering the lack of any form of errata to the rules, there can be no other assumption.


    I hope to all that is holy that you are trolling now. Otherwise....
    My God....


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:35:23


    Post by: LordWaffles


    Gwar! wrote:Except that he is being Generous.

    You may not like it, hell, even I don't like it, but that is what the RaW says, no two ways about it.


    Don't you yell at me you SoB I'm in group B.

    Albeit you did hand out a straw man argument, if you said something like,

    "Would you consider it fun if I decided I wanted to use flamers out of the fire points of a rhino?"

    would you still follow that sentence with:

    "No, because that is not following the rules."


    Technically I'd love if whenever I killed an mc, hookers rained from the ceiling. Is it in the rules? No. Is it a worthwhile addition and worth the <5 seconds it'd take to arrange with my opponent? Sure.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:40:56


    Post by: lucasbuffalo


    LordWaffles wrote:
    Technically I'd love if whenever I killed an mc, hookers rained from the ceiling. Is it in the rules? No. Is it a worthwhile addition and worth the <5 seconds it'd take to arrange with my opponent? Sure.


    Now this is an idea I support.


    Move, disembark, fire. @ 2010/10/18 08:45:36


    Post by: insaniak


    Gwar! wrote:No, I am not. The creators clearly intended for it to be unable to fire. Otherwise they would not have made the gun as it is. Considering the lack of any form of errata to the rules, there can be no other assumption.


    This post is clearly trolling. Considering the lack of anything clearly identifying this post as humour, there can be no other assumption.



    Given how far this thread has wandered from the original topic, I think it's time to move on.