Does it say they stack? If not, they do not. Multiple instances of the same special rule do not stack unless they specifically state as such. I believe it states this in the introduction to the Special Rules.
They used to stack, if you charged a unit with multiple different rad grenade inquisitors it could actually get dropped to T 0 and removed from play, but it never happened because it is ridiculous.
Elric Greywolf wrote: Rad grenades are a piece of wargear, not a special rule.
Although the wargear's effects might be a special rule....
It is.
It is not a special rule.
A heavy bolter is wargear, is it a special rule? No.
An Iron Halo is wargear, is it a special rule? No.
Omnispex, surely that must be a special rule? No.
Enhanced Data Tether? Nope.
Rad grenades do not have a special rule, they simply give -1 toughness.
Skitarii Vanguard have a special rule, on the unit page, listed under SPECIAL RULES, it states the special rule, because it is listed as a special rule then it does not stack. Grenades are not listed as a special rule.
If an effect is not listed in the BRB under special rules, or in the codex it originates from as a special rule "such as Luminagen" where it is set on the wargear as a special rule.
Then it is not a special rule.
A special rule would be any weargear that has a profile and within it profile it lists a named effect, such as poison, melta, flamer, rending, shred etc. I could then flip to the appropriate page for that rule and see what the effect does.
Rad grenades have no such profile listing an effect that would identify it as a special rule. It is simply a piece of wargear and we are following the rules for the wargear.
The exact wording of the rule is this: 'During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase'
The rule is asking you if the enemy unit has been charged by a unit equipped with rad grenades. It doesn't care how many times it has been charged. Only that 'during a turn' it has been charged. Thus the modifier only applies once. It would need specific wording that tells you to apply it multiple times.
Show me where these grenades are identified as a special rule, effects only applying once only applies to special rules.
Do those grenades break or bend a basic rule in the game?
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule
Special rules are so important that many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here
1 skitarii rules do not stack not because there a special rule but because of how they are worded "when locked in combat with a unit that contain's one or more models with this special rule" so it doesn't matter how many models/units with rule are in the combat it can trigger 20 times it will only ever be -1t
2 old rad grenades "during a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault or is assaulted" so all that matters is does the unit have rad grenades not how many models have rad grenades (they don't stack within units)
However several units equipped with rad grenades charging the same unit would stack because the special rule triggers on each charging unit only once. The rule then impacts the unit that is charged. Just like several different units all throwing a frag grenade at the same unit wold be effected by several blasts not a singular blast because it can only be effected once
Nb it would also work if the enemy multi charged several units with the rule.
3 this is long established as how it works
4 new rad grenades have identical wording therefore are no different to old rad grenades
5 most tournaments restrict formations so while this works the reality is you can't get more than a handful unless your unbound and remember they have to charge as separate units
WARGEAR:
• Skitarii war plate
• Radium carbine
SPECIAL RULES:
• Doctrina Imperatives
• Feel No Pain (6+)
• Relentless
Rad-saturation: While a unit is locked in combat with one or more models with this
special rule all models in that unit subtract 1 from their Toughness (to a minimum of 1).
He has wargear and he has special rules. Is a Radium Carbine a special rule? No.
Does the Radium Carbine have a special rule? Yes.
Rad Poisoning: When firing a weapon that has this special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 causes 2 Wounds on the target unit, regardless of the target’s Toughness. Each Wound is
allocated and saved against separately.
Specifically notated as a special rule within its codex, luminagen has the exact same scenario.
He can take an Omnispex, does that have any special rule? No. It is not notated as such and neither is like half the wargear in the game.
Do they break a basic rule? No, they don't.
Show me what basic rule they are breaking. This is no different than a psyocculum or empyrean brain mines or psybolt ammuniton. Hell there are relics that don't have any special rules.
Do they have a special rule? No, they don't.
Show me the page in the BRB where there is an effect listed for these grenades, or in either Inquisition codex where the effect is listed as a special rule.
There seems to be a vast misunderstanding of what is a special rule and what is not.
There seems to be a vast misunderstanding of what is a special rule and what is not.
Which is odd, as you have just been given the definition.
Where you seem to have a difference is opinion, is that whilst the vast majority of special rules have unique names, there are a few which don't. This doesn't make them less special, as long as they meet the criteria for special rules, which is a rule which breaks or bends a main game rule.
To say that modifying a units toughness when you charge it is not changing main game rules is not something I can agree with. It is therefore special a special rule and does not stack.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify....
Not, special rules only, WARGEAR.
If a model has a combination of rules OR WARGEAR that modify a characteristic, apply multipliers first etc etc.
Page 156 BRB
Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
I do not see a special rule under Rad Grenades in the codex, I do not see a special rule under the BRB special rules section for Rad Grenades or an ability given to them. It is a piece of wargear, listed under wargear, the rules state wargear can modify attributes and it has no special rules associated to it.
So yes, it is very very odd that you don't understand this after I explained it to you.
You seem to be under this impression that something is a special rule just because you feel like what it is doing is special. That is your opinion and not a rule.
Show me where it is a special rule, show me the basic rule it is breaking, as there is a basic rule stating wargear can do this.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it, subtracting from it, multiplying it, or setting it to a value.
Not wargear WITH special rules, wargear OR special rules.
The entire purpose of special rules is to supersede what another rule says. There is no basic rule that states characteristics cannot be modified, snap shooting is a perfect example of a basic rule that modify's a characteristic.
If I hit a Celestine with a base str 10 attack, instead of getting Instant Death she has Eternal Warrior, that conflicts with what is being stated about Instant Death.
If a model had a special rule that stated its characteristic's couldn't be modified, then in this case the grenades would do nothing.
Again you are making an assumption about what is a special rule. We can clearly see what are special rules, they are called special rules on a data sheet or listed as a special rule in a codex.
The problem as in most gw problems is ambiguous wording
Breaking the main game rules - find me the definition of main game rules the main game rulebook features the word special rules 444 times exactly and spends 7 paragraphs defining what special rules are and what you have.
A model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once here's the thing it isn't
Inquisitor 1 charges 1's grenade has the rule it applies once and gives unit b -1t
Then Inquisitor 2 charges 2's grenade has the rule it applies once and gives unit b-1t
Unit b has -2t net
The model gaining a benefit is the inquisitor it is only applied once in in both charges the unit they impact on is irrelevant
What SPECIAL rule does it have? Please explain it to me.
Special rules are merely a list of rules that take PRECEDENCE when conflicting with another rule.
Rad grenades do not have a special rule, they simply have rules for rad grenades.
Rad Saturation? Nope.
Melta? Nope.
Gets Hot? No.
Rending? Not that either.
There is an entire section called Special Rules and the special rules are in that section. Just like on a datasheet for Skitarii Vanguard it has Rad Saturation listed in SPECIAL RULES.
Everyone seems to be operating under this vague idea that the rad grenades must be a special rule, however there is nothing that indicates that they are.
Each piece of wargear has its own rules.
Some wargear also have special rules.
When there are special rules it will explicitly notate it as a special rule.
Such as Phosphoenix, it has special rules, phosphex and luminagen.
Phosphex: When firing a weapon that has this special rule, a successful To Hit roll scores 3 hits against the target unit instead of 1.
Luminagen: A unit that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, glancing or penetrating hits caused by a weapon with this special rule counts...
Notice in each circumstance they identify themselves as a special rule.
So no, the model ends up with -2t.
Wargear is notated as being allowed to modify characteristics on page 8 and another example of a basic rule modifiying would be snap shooting.
You need to demonstrate this is breaking a rule and that it is a special rule. I have provided pages and sections that indicate it is not.
U02dah4 wrote: Special rules section
Sub section what special rules do I have
Paragraph 3 "this is by no means an exhaustive list"
2nd for some extra rules lawyery smack down
Check out the unusual grenades rule
You will find this in the grenades of the 41st millenium section
"Some grenades do not have a profile"
Rad grenades do not have a profile
"Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules"
Ergo their effects are special rules
I have now provided the sections proving they are....
Smack down complete
That argument doesn't work. A general blanket statement meant to explain a broad idea is not a rules citation.
That being said, Rad Grenades don't stack. The wording of the rule provides no ability to do so - There is one conditional statement. If a unit charges or has been charged by a unit with rad grenades, they are at -1 Toughness for that phase. It's not 'The rad grenades inflict -1 Toughness until the end of the phase', it's just a -1 if that condition is met. If you are charged by three different units, you are still just at -1, because the grenade's rule is binary - Either it is triggered or it isn't.
Except it isn't labeled as a special rule, which is the scenario where the effects do not stack because special rules do not stack unless said special rule explicitly says it does.
In this case, they are never identified, called or description as a special rule of any kind. Calling them such is a self assumed extrapolation.
Again PAGE 8 BRB states wargear is allowed to do this. Rad Grenades are a wargear. They do not have a special rule. Hence the "the effect has already been applied" argument is moot because it is entirely contingent upon these grenades having a special rule and that has not been established.
There is a section of the BRB that notates what special rules exist.
Codex's notate what things have special rules.
You are fabricating that it is a special rule from nothing.
The "breaks or bends the rules" is part of the explanation of the rules that follow in that section "the special rules section", unless there is a rule in that section "hence making it a special rule" that term is unrelated to the rule in question. This "model gaining the benefit" is also an attribute of a special rule. These arguments mean nothing unless you have shown where rad grenades are a special rule.
Bringing these up is about as effective as yelling "Well drop pods don't scatter!" It has nothing to do with proving your point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Going to ground is a rule.
Is it a special rule? No.
Snapshooting is a rule.
Is it a special rule? No.
A psyocculum or psyammo is wargear.
Do they have a special rule? No.
Brainmines...? No.
These each modify str, cover, ws, initiative and all of them are not special rules.
Do the rules on page 8 state, verbatim, that wargear is allowed to modify characteristics? Yes.
Clearly we have things that are not special rules that modify without being special rules.
Show me the rule that is being broken.
Show me where the grenades are notated as a special rule.
Ok... what page and book/codex is this rule on that you are referring me too.
If you have this you should have provided it a long time ago.
Still waiting for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again... this means nothing.
Right above "unusual grenades" it states...
and therefore any grenade that can be used to attack a vehicle in close combat can also be used against a building.
A model that can use such a grenade as a melee weapon can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of attacks in its profile or any bonuses. Different grenades have different profiles WHEN USED IN THIS MANNER, as explained below.
Circa - Unusual Grenades
Unusual Grenades are specifically notated to apply to grenades that can be used as a melee weapon, rad grenades are not used as a melee weapon, in fact rad grenades don't even shoot, it is just an effect that happens. They are not even actually technically grenades except for the fact that the fluff name calls them grenades. They do not perform any actions a grenade does which is replacing a shooting or assault attack. By your reasoning on this so far, only one grenade launcher per unit can attack because its named grenade.
So again, please point me to where Rad Grenades are a special rule or identified as having a special rule.
If you cannot, then clearly them having a special rule is an assumption everyone is making.
Not particularly invested in such a heated debate, but I'm going to look up the Rad grenades rules right now and see what it says.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was very curious, because I've been playing alot of skitarrii/Ad Mec and combining Rad grenades with Vanguards and Infiltrators seems like a fun combo.
From Inquisition Codex---
"Rad grenades: During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the
end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
-----
The wording to me reads fairly clearly that this does not stack, it would however stack with other modifiers, such as Rad armor or some other Toughness modifiers, but not with other Rad Grendaes, but I could understand why there is some doubt.
Tsol wrote: Not particularly invested in such a heated debate, but I'm going to look up the Rad grenades rules right now and see what it says.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was very curious, because I've been playing alot of skitarrii/Ad Mec and combining Rad grenades with Vanguards and Infiltrators seems like a fun combo.
From Inquisition Codex---
"Rad grenades: During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the
end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
-----
The wording to me reads fairly clearly that this does not stack, it would however stack with other modifiers, such as Rad armor or some other Toughness modifiers, but not with other Rad Grendaes, but I could understand why there is some doubt.
It does not stack if you have multiple grenades in the same unit. However it does stack if different units with them charge the same unit.
Please remember that Vanguard have a special rule, in their special rule section of their data sheet, called Rad Saturation.
Special rules cannot stack.
Rad Grenades however do not have a special rule.
Just like brain mines don't have one, or psyammo, or a psyocculum.
Note you quoted the rules exactly as they read on the entry, nowhere does it state they are a special rule nor do they have a profile stating a special rule that they have, such as luminagen, melta, haywire etc. Also grenades replace a shooting or melee attack, these do neither, it is just an effect that happens.
Ceann wrote: It does not stack if you have multiple grenades in the same unit. However it does stack if different units with them charge the same unit.
Please remember that Vanguard have a special rule, in their special rule section of their data sheet, called Rad Saturation.
Special rules cannot stack.
Rad Grenades however do not have a special rule.
Just like brain mines don't have one, or psyammo, or a psyocculum.
Note you quoted the rules exactly as they read on the entry, nowhere does it state they are a special rule nor do they have a profile stating a special rule that they have, such as luminagen, melta, haywire etc. Also grenades replace a shooting or melee attack, these do neither, it is just an effect that happens.
Hmm...
SPECIAL RULES ...
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
This paragraph is a reverse definition. It is including everything that falls under this definition's umbrella as part of that designation.
So, unless rad grenades don't bend or break the main game rules, they either are special rules or carry special rules within them. They do not need to be called Special Rules as what they do defines them as such.
The unusual grenades rule is in the grenades section of the 40k rulebook
"Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
Rad grenades have no profile and are therefore this type of grenade
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blast is a defined special rule
If I have 2 units with frag grenades
They both benefit from the blast rule when throwing them blast is a special rule on a weapon
Both units can throw them at the same enemy unit.
For those people saying rad grenades don't stack can you explain why these do because your line of argument presently says the unit becomes immune to blasts once a blast weapon hits it.
As in both cases of rad grenades and blast weapons the model gaining the benefit is the one fIreing not the target therefore they stack
Did you read nothing I said?
Read the paragraph above your unusual grenades box.
A model that can use such a grenade as a melee weapon can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of attacks in its profile or any bonuses. Different grenades have different profiles WHEN USED IN THIS MANNER, as explained below.
The part where it identifies grenades that are used as melee weapons and how when used in this manner they are unusual grenades?
Please show me on rad grenades where they are used as a melee attack.
Rad grenades are only grenades in name. They do not replace any shooting or melee attack and the unusual grenades rule does not apply to them. They do not even have blast, you have done little research into your point and clearly not reading mine.
I read everything you wrote you selectively dismiss the rules you don't like and therefore keep coming to the wrong conclusion
Rad grenades are a grenade without a profile and therefore there special rules determine what they are and do
Yes they are a grenade hence the name rad grenade
You may not like this but that's why the rule exists to govern grenades that cannot be used as a thrown or melee weapon in fact the rule if you read it says they can't be used in that way
No they don't have blast I am using blast as an example of another special rule that doesn't stack on the model that benefits from it but has a cumulative impact on an enemy unit to point a flaw in the argument of the people other than yourself who say it doesn't stack
Because if there line of argument is correct after my unit is first hit by a blast weapon it becomes immune to all further blast weapons
It is a different discussion to your's. To show I have been reading your's
A grenade isn't a grenade even if it says it's a grenade and it's named a grenade
the rulebook has 444 uses of the words "special rules" of which only 2 matter the other 442 are irrelevant
Everyone else keeps coming to the wrong conclusion because they read the other rules such as lists being non exaustive and what constitute's basic rules not having a clear definition making their broad statement the 2 lines you read subjective which is clearly wrong because only those 2 matter and they are crystal clear
And if something disagrees with your position it doesn't count even in a direct quote because your right and 2 lines trump all even though there defining statement is 7 paragraphs long and vague
Lastly when what you say contradicts the RAW you are correct and we should accept that as you have told us the right answer
You are asserting what is and isn't a special rule. There is a section listed for them. If it is otherwise a special rule it is indicated on a data sheet or codex or explicitly stated.
Page 8 provides permission to wargear to modify stats.
It has a basic rule stating it can perform this function.
It is not breaking or bending a basic rule so there is no requirement for it to have or need a special rule.
There are not 400 iterations of special rule. If something is identified as one it is, otherwise it isnt.
By your logic a unit cannot have two grenade launchers, if one of them fires the other can't and also a 3rd guy can't throw a grenade. Because they are all named grenade, the name of a wargear has no rules value, it is fluff.
Yes blast is a special rule, no arguments there.
Unusual grenades states right above the box the criteria for what qualified as an unusual grenade.
If you look at the grenade list it apply to haywire and meltabombs. Both of which are special rules in the special rule section.
Your entire arguments so far are on the basis that something that isn't a special rule, is a special rule, because you think it should be.
The section directly above is entitled vehicles gun emplacements and monstrous creatures and the portion you misuse is
"a model can use such a grenade as a melee weapon, but can only make one attack regardless of its number of attacks or its profile bonuses, different grenades have different profiles when they are used in this manner see below
The unusual grenades rule
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
It is explicitly stated that they are special rules in the unusual grenade rule
The criteria is "some grenades do not have a profile"
Rad grenades have no profile and are therefore this type of grenade. the key part is "Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules." ergo the rules accompanying rad grenades are special rules
by your logic any grenade that doesn't have a profile would not meet the criteria for unusual grenades defeating the purpose of the rule which is to govern them.
It is explicitly stated as a special rule so the pg8 argument of whether it could do it without being a special rule is irrelevant it is a special rule
the word special is next to the word rule 444 times in the rulebook stretched across nearly every section this makes it difficult to determine what constitutes a "basic rule" it does not mean they are all separate definitions
That is where the logic of the people who say rad grenades don't stack leads. It is the same argument. I don't agree with their standpoint because rad grenades stack but sometimes rather than repeat the same line again and again it makes more sense to try and reason it a different way to show them that their logic doesn't work (Note non of them have responded because the idea is ludicrous)
yes war gear's name has value check the FAQ on what constitutes a plasma weapon for example and you will find its any weapon with the name plasma in its title to give you a clear example
I only argue its a special rule because its explicitly stated to be a special rule a fact you keep selectively ignoring despite multiple people telling you it is and being quoted the rule explicitly stating that it is
what is below is separate categories for every type of grenade
so unusual, assault, plasma , defensive, haywire, krak, melta bombs. The first happens to be unusual that does not mean it only applies to unusual
think about your argument
grenade can be used as a melee attack see below
and then unusual grenades - Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
so for it to be an unusual grenade by your definition it would have to be usable as a melee attack and then not be usable as a melee attack unless it specifically stated while not having a profile.
what could possibly meet this criteria
Most of these categories can be used in that above way as it is a basic rule unusual grenades is the only category that can't (unless otherwise stated) and represents a deviation from the basic rules of the game hence why it is separated off (note this is what we call a "special rule")
You mean like circumstances where haywire grenades or meltabombs do not have profiles and use their special rules?
And those grenades are listed as grenades in the grenades section.
The section for unusual grenades is predicated upon the fact that the above critera is being met in order to be considered an unusual grenade. You are looking at what an unusual grenade is and reverse applying it to another piece of wargear without it having met the critera to be one in the first place.
Grenades have a shooting attack replacement, hence a shooting profile. Therefore grenades that are unusual are grenades that do not have a shooting profile and are used as a melee attack. Hence making them unusual grenades.
Again by your logic two grenades launchers and an assault grenade could not be used in the same shooting attack because they all have grenade in the name.
and haywire grenades have a profile they are therefore not unusual grenades as the criteria for an unusual grenades is that it doesn't have a profile
no my logic is they can
a model cannot benefit from a rule more than once but the three models firing are only benefiting from the rule once. Just as three models in a unit may benefit from furious charge or 3 separate grenade launchers with the blast rule may all fire at the same unit this is all fine.
the models that are adversely impacted are not the ones effected by the rule.
Now if a model had the blast rule twice it wouldn't stack just as furious charge wouldn't stack twice on the same model
Automatically Appended Next Post: Inquisitor 1 charges 1's grenade has the rule it applies once and gives unit b -1t
Then Inquisitor 2 charges 2's grenade has the rule it applies once and gives unit b-1t
Unit b has -2t net
The model gaining a benefit is the inquisitor it is only applied once in in both charges the unit they impact on is irrelevant
Automatically Appended Next Post: if you don't accept that interpretation you have to explain why you can use three blast weapons on a unit in the same shooting phase
NB The grenade launcher is not listed in the main rules but variants are listed in several codex's such as the astartes grenade launcher which is listed as a ranged weapon and therefore follows the ranged weapon rules and not the grenade rules
If your stuck in differentiation try to consider is grenade being used as an adjective or a noun if it is a noun it is a grenade in grenade launcher it is an adjective and therefore it is not
Which is entirely predicated upon as assumption it is a special rule. Which you have yet to prove.
Unusual grenades states that when used as a replacement for a melee attack to see the below, which is unusual grenades.
Melta bombs cannot be used as a melee weapon and have no melee weapon attack, hence being an unusual grenade. The special rules for melta bombs tell them to use the included profile. They still do not have a melee profile.
Haywire grenades also do not have a melee profile, it states they cannot be use in assaults and remember unusual grenades is referring to a melee attack, which haywire and melta do not possess and you make melee attacks in the assault phase.
What you are failing to understand is that all of the rules on the grenades page are about the replacement of shooting or melee attack with those grenades and the circumstances and criteria do so.
Rad grenades do not replace a shooting or melee attack so do not require a profile. Just like any other wargear that doesn't attack, like an iron halo doesn't have a profile, that doesn't make an iron halo a grenade.
They are permitted per page 8 of the basic rules to modify stats as wargear is allowed to do so. They are not breaking a rule.
They do not have a special rule and one is not required.
I proved with the unusual grenade rule which you continue to dismiss
"Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
That is all it says the rest is you conflating standard rules with a special rule.
Melta bombs have a profile therefore they are not an unusual grenade
Notice "these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons" so clearly they are not all about the replacement of shooting or melee attack with those grenades there is a category that deviates from this called unusual grenades
a special rule is required because the unusual grenades are breaking a basic rule by not always being used as weapons
You proved nothing with unusual grenades.
The qualifier to even look at the box labeled unusual grenades, is entirely contingent upon you using a grenade as a melee attack.
Rad grenades are not making or replacing a melee attack, we have no technical reason to consult the unusual grenades text box.
You are removing that requirement in your argument.
Melta bombs do not have a MELEE profile, please remember you are replacing a melee attack. The rules for melta and haywire provide you a special profile to use instead of a melee profile. This is so you can't punch a cultist with a melta bomb or have two melee weapons.
The missing a profile you are referring too indeed does not exist, they do not have one. They then have special rules notating how you can use them in replacement of a melee attack. The lack of a profile being referred too is an assault profile.
Snapshooting is basic rule.
Going to ground is a basic rule.
Page 8 gives wargear explicit permission to modify characteristics.
Page 8 is a basic rule.
Rad grenades are a war gear.
They do not have a special rule.
They are not breaking a basic rule.
Read:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
Do Rad Grenades break the rules of the game? Is it normal for any actions to reduce the stat profile of a model?
Snapshooting is a basic rule, but only for specific situations. Going to Ground is a basic rule, but only for specific situations. Anything that that forces snapshooting outside of the norm is a special rule. Anything that forces a unit to Go To Ground outside of the unit being shot and/or the owning player's choice is a special rule.
Dude really?
Page 8 BRB, grants wargear the ability to modify characteristics.
No rule is being broken.
So a special rule is not required.
Nothing is normal, we are doing exactly what we are told.
Psyammo modifys, brain mines modify, iron halo modifys, omnispex modifys, Camo nets, seems pretty normal to me.
You are right there are special rules that do things differently, that has nothing to do with this. Wargear changing stats is not new, basic shooting changes your wounds, no special rule required.
Unless you can point to the special rule that rad grenades have then they don't have one and one isn't required.
If something is a special rule it is stated as such, in a data sheet or in the BRB section or codex.
Demonstrate that rad grenades have a special rule and also demonstrate this odd scenario everyone's keeps saying but can't point too that there are fake special rules and we have to consider them as such without them being that.
"Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules"
Rad grenades do not have a profile therefore their rules are special rules
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase'
it doesn't matter whether this is required the unusal grenade rule specifies they are special rules
Ceann wrote: Dude really?
Page 8 BRB, grants wargear the ability to modify characteristics.
No rule is being broken.
So a special rule is not required.
Nothing is normal, we are doing exactly what we are told.
Psyammo modifys, brain mines modify, iron halo modifys, omnispex modifys, Camo nets, seems pretty normal to me.
You are right there are special rules that do things differently. Wargear change stats is not new. Hell shooting changes your wounds.
Unless you can point to the special rule that rad grenades have then they don't have one and one isn't required.
The modification itself is performed by a special rule of the Wargear. It is not normal for a model's characteristic to be modified. The statement under Modifiers is that they "can" do it, not will do it.
Just because we are doing what we are told, does not mean it isn't a special rule. It's a change to the normal run of the game.
Can you demonstrate where in the rules where it states from The Turn through Morale that any attacks or presence of a model or use of a Wargear always modifies a stat?
The Boltgun does carry a Special Rule in its Type called Rapid Fire, just as a Bolt Pistol carries a special rule in its type called Pistol. Meltaguns also carry a special rule called "Melta". By your assessment, these change nothing and are not special rules since this is how the game normally operates and we are just doing what we are told to do.
No. Melta is in the special rules section.
Pistol is a weapon type from the weapons section, not the special rules section, jus like assault and rapid fire are not in the special rules section.
You seem to have a strange opinion about what is and isn't a special rule. If I don't see it in the special rules section or notated as such in its data sheet or codex then it is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
It states clearly under profiles what the weapon types are and that special rules will be found in the special rules section.
The only special rules that exist are notated in the special rules section or are described as on their data sheet or codex. Any other consideration is your opinion.
I find your statement to be completely disingenuous to the spirit of RAW. I am not misrepresenting any rule as something else, you are.
I have asked where this wargear is stated as having a special rule and you have done anything but that. It has to have a special rule to qualify as a singular modifier.
We have page 8, basic rules allowing modification.
We have a piece of wargear performing modification.
You have both alluded that it's a special rule but cannot point to where it is a special rule.
To be a special rule it has to break or bend the rules, it is not per page 8.
In order to be an unusual grenade it has to be replacing a melee attack, it is not doing that.
Both of these arguments assume rad grenades have met the criteria to be considered a certain thing, while it has not actually satisfied those prerequisites.
That you don't accept the raw doesn't make it opinion we have quoted the rule to you proving their special rules you choose not accept the raw that is your choice but it doesn't change the raw
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to pointing for the 30th time it's the unusual grenade rule
Ceann wrote:No. Melta is in the special rules section.
Location means nothing when we have a definition which places something in the same category.
Ceann wrote:Pistol is a weapon type from the weapons section, not the special rules section, jus like assault and rapid fire are not in the special rules section.
And the ability to magically become a different type of Weapon during a phase is not unusual? Again, this is not part of the standard rules in the Shooting Phase or Assault Phase. They bend or break the rule of the game, so "special rule".
Ceann wrote:You seem to have a strange opinion about what is and isn't a special rule. If I don't see it in the special rules section or notated as such in its data sheet or codex then it is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
So Chapter Tactics is not a Special Rule? It's not listed in the Special Rules section of the codex, after all.
Again, review the introduction of "Special Rules". It provides the definition I am going by. You are going by a different definition that excludes the very definition the rulebook supplies.
Ceann wrote:Well sometimes people are wrong.
Especially if they refuse to read up in the book as noted, and apply what they have read?
Ceann wrote:The only special rules that exist are notated in the special rules section or are described as on their data sheet or codex. Any other consideration is your opinion.
Incorrect. I have quoted it and referenced it. You are denying this.
Ceann wrote:I have asked where this wargear is stated as having a special rule and you have done anything but that. It has to have a special rule to qualify as a singular modifier.
Per the definition of special rules, it bends or breaks the game's rules.
Ceann wrote:We have page 8, basic rules allowing modification.
We have a piece of wargear performing modification.
You have both alluded that it's a special rule but cannot point to where it is a special rule.
To be a special rule it has to break or bend the rules, it is not per page 8.
Okay, show me where in the basic rules that every grenade does the affect of Rad Grenades. If every grenades does not do this or every grenade specifically state it does not do this, then this specific affect is a basic rule. Alternaitvely, the Shooting Phase or Assault Phase instructions would tell you that anyone carrying Grenades would do exactly what rad grenades say they do.
Capacity to do something is a basic rule. It's actually a general statement and it covers the basic rules of modifiers themselves. It is not defining what Wargear and Special Rules actively do.
Here's a semi-related question in terms of defining what is or isn't a special rule. Beasts and Cavalry can move 12" in the Movement Phase, special rule or not?
Page 8 states wargear is allowed to modify, add subtract etc from stats. This is a basic rule, a basic rule is not being broken a basic rule is being used.
If you read the details for weapons it states that the weapon type and special rules, of which melta is a special rule.
Nothing is magically changing types. Please elaborate.
Chapter tactics are a special rule as noted on their data sheet and their codex. They may not be in the BRB section but they are in the codex SM as a special rule. Not sure why this is a question as I mentioned codex and datasheets in the line you quoted.
What exactly is it you are presuming I have not read.
The special rules description of breaking of bending rules, which isn't happening here anyway per page 8 BRB, is to inform you that the rules of the special rules section will contradict other rules not in the special rule section and that other special rules will also do the same. It is not a free license to brand things as special rules at your whim.
I don't need to prove what grenades do, they all do different things hence being different items. The requirement to not stack is by having a special rule. PER page 8 wargear can modify stats.
We have no special rule listed for rad grenades.
Rad grenades are not unusual grenades, they do not replace a melee attack which is a requisite to be unusual.
Rad grenades do not make a shooting attack, they technically aren't even grenades besides the name. They are a wargear that has a stated effect and when the effect occurs.
What needs to be established is that rad grenades have a special, they do not on their wargear entry.
Or that they do not have a rule allowing them to reduce a characteristic, which they do on page 8.
As for calv or beast rules I don't know own them offhand I'll have to get back to you but as I don't recall seeing anything about them I'd imagine it's not a special rule but a unit type.
Calvary can move 12 as defined under the unit type calvary in the unit section. Units of the calvary type gain fleet and hammer of wrath special rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: All wargear modify a characteristic as a basic rule?
What characteristic does my Warrior's gauss flayer modify?
Wargear are given a default permission to be able too per page 8. If it does or does not would be up to the gear in question.
Ceann wrote: Calvary can move 12 as defined under the unit type calvary in the unit section. Units of the calvary type gain fleet and hammer of wrath special rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: All wargear modify a characteristic as a basic rule?
What characteristic does my Warrior's gauss flayer modify?
Wargear are given a default permission to be able too per page 8. If it does or does not would be up to the gear in question.
If it's a basic rule then it means that ALL wargear modifies a characteristic unless it is specifically stated otherwise.
What characteristic does my Monolith's Eternity Gate modify? The Eternity Gate rule does not specifically mention that it does not modify a characteristic, so what characteristic does it modify as a basic rule?
Also going back a couple but the unusual grenade rule has no restrict on replacing a melee attack as part of that rule says you can't make a melee attack with it unless the special rules of the unusual grenade say you can
Ceann wrote: Page 8 states wargear is allowed to modify, add subtract etc from stats. This is a basic rule, a basic rule is not being broken a basic rule is being used.
So where does it state that all grenades reduce a model's T by 1?
Ceann wrote: If you read the details for weapons it states that the weapon type and special rules, of which melta is a special rule.
That wasn't the argument. Location of where the special rule means nothing is the point.
Ceann wrote: Nothing is magically changing types. Please elaborate.
Read the Pistol type for more information. Why didn't you do that before stating nothing changes?
Ceann wrote: Chapter tactics are a special rule as noted on their data sheet and their codex. They may not be in the BRB section but they are in the codex SM as a special rule. Not sure why this is a question as I mentioned codex and datasheets in the line you quoted.
But not where it explains it in the codex. In fact, it has it's own special section of the Appendix separated out for it just like the Armoury.
Ceann wrote: What exactly is it you are presuming I have not read.
The special rules description of breaking of bending rules, which isn't happening here anyway per page 8 BRB, is to inform you that the rules of the special rules section will contradict other rules not in the special rule section and that other special rules will also do the same. It is not a free license to brand things as special rules at your whim.
I don't need to prove what grenades do, they all do different things hence being different items. The requirement to not stack is by having a special rule. PER page 8 wargear can modify stats.
In order for what rad grenades to be doing everything basic, everything about them would have to be defined within the Phase rules, or even as part of the base rules for all of that type of Wargear.
Not every Wargear modifies a Characteristic. In fact, those that do so to an enemy unit are rather rare, with Blind being the most common. The point of the Modifier rules on page 8 is not to establish Wargear modifying things is a base rule, but to establish base rules for when that actually happens. It talks about Wargear and Special Rules doing so to establish where we might see this happening. That's it.
Ceann wrote: We have no special rule listed for rad grenades.
Rad grenades are not unusual grenades, they do not replace a melee attack which is a requisite to be unusual.
Rad grenades do not make a shooting attack, they technically aren't even grenades besides the name. They are a wargear that has a stated effect and when the effect occurs.
What needs to be established is that rad grenades have a special, they do not on their wargear entry.
Or that they do not have a rule allowing them to reduce a characteristic, which they do on page 8.
But not all grenades do the same thing as Rad Grenades, so that makes them unusual. They are only available for a couple factions, this would also make them unusual. They are not defined in the BRB, that makes them unusual.
Therefore, what makes Rad Grenades actually "usual"?
Ceann wrote: As for calv or beast rules I don't know own them offhand I'll have to get back to you but as I don't recall seeing anything about them I'd imagine it's not a special rule but a unit type.
Then everyone can move 12"?
Remember the definition of "special rule". It is not a "where it is printed", but "what does it do?" definition.
U02dah4 wrote: Also going back a couple but the unusual grenade rule has no restrict on on replacing a melee attack as part of that rule says you can't make an attack
Dude.
The box that says unusual grenades tells you what unusual grenades do.
The paragraph above that tells you what an unusual grenade IS.
You only consult the box labeled unusual grenades IF you are replacing a melee attack to use one.
We are not doing that. Please read that whole section.
Mr charistoph while i agree with most of what you wrote unusual grenades are a specificly defined special rule in the grenades section of the main rule book that reads
"Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
It is the lack of a profile that makes rad grenades unusual
U02dah4 wrote: Also going back a couple but the unusual grenade rule has no restrict on on replacing a melee attack as part of that rule says you can't make an attack
Dude.
The box that says unusual grenades tells you what unusual grenades do.
The paragraph above that tells you what an unusual grenade IS.
You only consult the box labeled unusual grenades IF you are replacing a melee attack to use one.
We are not doing that. Please read that whole section.
You can say we are not doing that all you want but me and the three gaming groups I play at are going to do it because that's the raw the above section does not apply to unusual grenades the bit your referring to is referring to the entire grenades section and the unusual grenades special rule overides that as you can't make a melee attack without a profile
It doesn't state all grenades reduce a Stat by one, if you read them they do not all say that. They have permission to do so by virtue of being wargear they are not to do so.
The pistol type has a rule that counts it as an extra weapon in assault. Where is the confusion?
If you go to a unit that has chapter tactics it will be listed under the special rules section of the datasheet. With the words special rules.
Word games with unusual. Unusual grenades are a rule for grenades that replace a melee attack, otherwise you could punch a cultist with a meltabomb, or count as having two weapons. Hence the need for a section elaborating on how to use grenades that replace a melee attack. Rad grenades do not replace a melee attack which I'd required to reference unusual grenades.
Can everyone move 12, no... look at the unit types section and a units data sheet. As you can see a unit has a unit type and each type will show the base moment of units of that type. So any unit that I'd a calvary unit can move 12, infantry are a different type of unit.
U02dah4 wrote: Mr charistoph while i agree with most of what you wrote unusual grenades are a specificly defined special rule in the grenades section of the main rule book that reads
"Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
It is the lack of a profile that makes rad grenades unusual
U02dah4 wrote: Also going back a couple but the unusual grenade rule has no restrict on on replacing a melee attack as part of that rule says you can't make an attack
Dude.
The box that says unusual grenades tells you what unusual grenades do.
The paragraph above that tells you what an unusual grenade IS.
You only consult the box labeled unusual grenades IF you are replacing a melee attack to use one.
We are not doing that. Please read that whole section.
You can say we are not doing that all you want but me and the three gaming groups I play at are going to do it because that's the raw the above section does not apply to unusual grenades the bit your referring to is referring to the entire grenades section and the unusual grenades special rule overides that as you can't make a melee attack without a profile
You are told.
Explicitly.
SEE BELOW.
To refer to the below, unusual grenades, when making a melee attack replacement with a grenade.
Are we making a melee attack with rad grenades?
No.
I understand what the shiny box that says unusual grenades says. The text above that tells you the circumstances in which you would read this box and use what it says. You continue to reiterate the contents of the box but you ignore the part about when you are told to use the box.
The lack of profile it is referencing is a melee profile for grenades, which they do not have, you cannot punch someone with a grenade, which is why grenades have a shooting profile.
How do you make a melee attack with a grenade that doesn't have a melee profile?
That is what an unusual grenade is, and the rules for melta and haywire allow you to make a pseudo melee attack against vehicles without counting as a second melee weapon.
You are not making one because the unusual grenades rule prevents you but point 4 is defining it's rules as special
Without the unusual grenade rule you could not use meltabombs or haywire grenade.
They replace a melee attack.
I hope you understand now.
Please read the text above unusual grenades.
It is a rule for making melee attacks for grenades. If you are not making a melee attack with a grenade then you do not need to consult the unusual grenades text.
"Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below."
The bit about Unusual Grenades is an insert describing an exception for grenades that don't have profiles and can't be used as a shooting or Melee weapon. The insert isn't part of "as explained below" since (1) it's an insert and (2) doesn't have to do with the subject being explained ('different profiles').
U02dah4 wrote:Mr charistoph while i agree with most of what you wrote unusual grenades are a specificly defined special rule in the grenades section of the main rule book that reads
"Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise these grenades cannot be thrown or used as melee weapons"
It is the lack of a profile that makes rad grenades unusual
And I'm just trying to get him to recognize that this is "not normal". It is as much the "not normal" that defines the special rule as anything else.
That and he REALLY needs to work on quoting things properly. It is often hard to understand what he is addressing sometimes.
Ceann wrote:It doesn't state all grenades reduce a Stat by one, if you read them they do not all say that. They have permission to do so by virtue of being wargear they are not to do so.
Immaterial. It is different from the normal operations of the game, so it is breaking the game's rules.
Ceann wrote:The pistol type has a rule that counts it as an extra weapon in assault. Where is the confusion?
Reread the Pistol Type rule again. You may be reading an old rulebook then.
Ceann wrote:If you go to a unit that has chapter tactics it will be listed under the special rules section of the datasheet. With the words special rules.
And the actual explanation of which is in the Appendix under its own section like the Ranged Weapons and Melee Weapons. The point is that the actual definition of special rule is more important than its location. Understand?
Ceann wrote:Word games with unusual. Unusual grenades are a rule for grenades that replace a melee attack, otherwise you could punch a cultist with a meltabomb, or count as having two weapons. Hence the need for a section elaborating on how to use grenades that replace a melee attack. Rad grenades do not replace a melee attack which I'd required to reference unusual grenades.
Umm, no. The word games with unusual were to demonstrate the point of the concept of "special rule".
Unusual Grenades do not replace a Weapon's Attack unless they specifically state they do. In fact, they "cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon." Grenades only replace Melee Attacks when a, "model... use(s) such a grenade as a Melee weapon".
Or are you saying that a unit with Assault Grenades charging through Terrain can either use all their Attacks at Initiative 1 or no Attacks at all?
Meltabombs are not an Unusual Grenade by the pop-out's definition.
Ceann wrote:Can everyone move 12, no... look at the unit types section and a units data sheet. As you can see a unit has a unit type and each type will show the base moment of units of that type. So any unit that I'd a calvary unit can move 12, infantry are a different type of unit.
Is moving more than 6" breaking the basic rules of the game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: The lack of profile it is referencing is a melee profile for grenades, which they do not have, you cannot punch someone with a grenade, which is why grenades have a shooting profile.
How do you make a melee attack with a grenade that doesn't have a melee profile?
That is what an unusual grenade is, and the rules for melta and haywire allow you to make a pseudo melee attack against vehicles without counting as a second melee weapon.
You are not making one because the unusual grenades rule prevents you but point 4 is defining it's rules as special
Without the unusual grenade rule you could not use meltabombs or haywire grenade.
They replace a melee attack.
I hope you understand now.
Please read the text above unusual grenades.
The "Unusual Grenades" is separation from the normal process of reading. The "as explained below" is referring to Assault Grenades, Krak Grenades, etc., not just what is below it on the epub screen. It also says to use their special rules....
And Inquisition Rad Grenades don't carry any Weapon Profile...
It breaking the rules is your opinion.
Page 8 states wargear is allowed to subtract.
It is subtracting, what rule is being broken?
I don't have my codex with me at the moment if you have some point you are failing to make about pistols then state it rather than alluding to it and wondering why I didn't come back with the bone you were looking for.
Chapter tactics are identified on a data sheet as a special rule. From what I recall codex do not commonly have dedicated special rules sections, being located in the appendix is for ease of access. The important part is that it is labeled as a special rule.
What unusual grenades do is irrelevant, I understand it is a box with text in it. Above the box it details the circumstances under which you consult said box. Making a melee attack replacement is that circumstance, which we are not doing. Anything in that box is therefore void of relevance.
Only one model in a unit throws a grenade, that model does not make attacks, the others do. For assualt, they are not making a shooting attack, the rules for grenades assaulting is that they provide something when equipped.
Is moving more than 6 breaking a rule... not sure if you are being intentionally dense here. Units have a unit type, each unit type dictates it's base movement and rules attached to that unit type. Probably why unit type is listed on datasheets. Weapons have a base type, heavy assault pistol etc and have the base rules for those types.
It almost seems like you think there are a small number of base rules and everything is a special rule modifying those rules, this is not the case.
Ceann wrote: The lack of profile it is referencing is a melee profile for grenades, which they do not have, you cannot punch someone with a grenade, which is why grenades have a shooting profile.
How do you make a melee attack with a grenade that doesn't have a melee profile?
That is what an unusual grenade is, and the rules for melta and haywire allow you to make a pseudo melee attack against vehicles without counting as a second melee weapon.
You are not making one because the unusual grenades rule prevents you but point 4 is defining it's rules as special
Without the unusual grenade rule you could not use meltabombs or haywire grenade.
They replace a melee attack.
I hope you understand now.
Please read the text above unusual grenades.
It is a rule for making melee attacks for grenades. If you are not making a melee attack with a grenade then you do not need to consult the unusual grenades text.
Umm
Both melta bombs and haywire grenades have profiles therefore they are not an unusual grenade
these are there profiles
melta bomb R- S8 AP1 armourbane unwieldy
Haywire grenade R- S2 AP- Haywire
you'll find both these in the melta bomb and haywire sections of the grenades rules in additions both sections give you rules for using them in assaults such as melta bombs being exclusive to assaults and not able to be thrown
Ceann wrote: The lack of profile it is referencing is a melee profile for grenades, which they do not have, you cannot punch someone with a grenade, which is why grenades have a shooting profile.
How do you make a melee attack with a grenade that doesn't have a melee profile?
That is what an unusual grenade is, and the rules for melta and haywire allow you to make a pseudo melee attack against vehicles without counting as a second melee weapon.
You are not making one because the unusual grenades rule prevents you but point 4 is defining it's rules as special
Without the unusual grenade rule you could not use meltabombs or haywire grenade.
They replace a melee attack.
I hope you understand now.
Please read the text above unusual grenades.
It is a rule for making melee attacks for grenades. If you are not making a melee attack with a grenade then you do not need to consult the unusual grenades text.
Umm
Both melta bombs and haywire grenades have profiles therefore they are not an unusual grenade
these are there profiles
melta bomb R- S8 AP1 armourbane unwieldy
Haywire grenade R- S2 AP- Haywire
you'll find both these in the melta bomb and haywire sections of the grenades rules in additions both sections give you rules for using them in assaults such as melta bombs being exclusive to assaults and not able to be thrown
Sparky.
Do you see in either of those two profiles that listed the MELEE rule?
No? Me neither.
You cannot use them in melee.
But wait Ceann, we can only use these in melee!
Oh I guess they must be an unusual grenade because they do not have a profile for melee right?
Yes, Ceann, they are quite unusual.
Ok, then use the provided rules for unusual grenades.
Hmmm, no melee profile, okay, so what do the grenades say, oh wow, they give me a non melee profile to use in melee.
Now flip back a page to Melee Weapons.
Chainsword - type melee, lighting claws - type melee, powerfist - type melee.
Do you see now? Unusual Grenades allow you to make a melee attack with those profiles without them actually having the melee attribute.
But 1 they have profile so are not unusual grenades
2 if you read that bit before the unusual grenades section the one that says "a model can use such a grenade as a melee weapon," that's what gives it permission to use it in assault not the unusual grenades rule
3 check the haywire grenade rules "Unless used in assaults against vehicles haywire grenades have no effect when used in assaults against vehicles haywire grenades have the following profile"
r- s2 ap- haywire
this also gives you permission just encase you weren't sure
note the phrase using the following profile which strongly suggests to me that it has a profile and therefore is not an unusual grenade
Automatically Appended Next Post: melta bombs "when used in assaults against vehicles buildings gun emplacements or monstrous creatures melta bombs have the following profile"
I don't know how possibly more obtuse you could be with this.
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements etc but have to be clamped into place.
A model can use such a grenade as a melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack. DIFFERENT GRENADES HAVE DIFFERENT PROFILE WHEN USED IN THIS MANNER.... AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
What is below my good man???
Unusual Grenades.
What manner you say???
Against vehicles or gun emplacements or FMC GMC as a melee weapon sir!
Are we using Rad grenades in this manner?
What manner sir?
As a melee weapon, as explained below.
No sir, I don't think we are using Rad grenades as a melee weapon.
So we don't need to reference "as explained below - Unusual Grenades"?
No sir, we do not.
Ceann wrote: I don't know how possibly more obtuse you could be with this.
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements etc but have to be clamped into place.
A model can use such a grenade as a melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack. DIFFERENT GRENADES HAVE DIFFERENT PROFILE WHEN USED IN THIS MANNER.... AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
What is below my good man???
Unusual Grenades.
What manner you say???
Against vehicles or gun emplacements or FMC GMC as a melee weapon sir!
Are we using Rad grenades in this manner?
What manner sir?
As a melee weapon, as explained below.
No sir, I don't think we are using Rad grenades as a melee weapon.
So we don't need to reference "as explained below - Unusual Grenades"?
No sir, we do not.
Thank the heavens Godfrey.
I'm being obtuse a half dozen people disagree with you not one person all day has supported you take a hint
You can find that on page 13 sir.
I am sure you have a BRB.
So what is it? Apparently you have not read it since your usage does not correspond to its definition. So what do you think the definition is?
Apparently you can't find a BRB and read it since you consistently fail to provide any page number references or quotes. You should acquire one.
If you otherwise have a point to make, I suggest you try to make it rather than alluding to it and expecting me to guess for you.
Ceann wrote: I don't know how possibly more obtuse you could be with this.
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements etc but have to be clamped into place.
A model can use such a grenade as a melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack. DIFFERENT GRENADES HAVE DIFFERENT PROFILE WHEN USED IN THIS MANNER.... AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
What is below my good man???
Unusual Grenades.
What manner you say???
Against vehicles or gun emplacements or FMC GMC as a melee weapon sir!
Are we using Rad grenades in this manner?
What manner sir?
As a melee weapon, as explained below.
No sir, I don't think we are using Rad grenades as a melee weapon.
So we don't need to reference "as explained below - Unusual Grenades"?
No sir, we do not.
Thank the heavens Godfrey.
I'm being obtuse a half dozen people disagree with you not one person all day has supported you take a hint
You cannot answer the questions.
Are we using rad grenades, in the manner referenced, to qualify as unusual grenades?
Are we using them as a melee weapon against vehicles, gun emplacements or MC's?
You can find that on page 13 sir.
I am sure you have a BRB.
So what is it? Apparently you have not read it since your usage does not correspond to its definition. So what do you think the definition is?
Apparently you can't find a BRB and read it since you consistently fail to provide any page number references or quotes. You should acquire one.
If you otherwise have a point to make, I suggest you try to make it rather than alluding to it and expecting me to guess for you.
My point is you do not know what the definition of a 'basic rule' is. You have not used it correctly and you do not know what the definition is. Prove me wrong.
Right... because you won't claim where it has been used wrong. So you have an argument you wont make so therefore my argument is invalid.... lmao.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rad Grenades - During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the vitctims Instant Death threshold).
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
Ceann wrote: Right... because you won't claim where it has been used wrong. So you have an argument you wont make so therefore my argument is invalid.... lmao.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rad Grenades - During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the vitctims Instant Death threshold).
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
Show permission in the basic rules for grenades to reduce Toughness
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the victim's Instant Death threshold).
Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively.
If you think there is something illegal here, point out exactly why you think so.
If no one finds anything illegal then we have to accept that it is indeed legal and valid according to the rules.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the victim's Instant Death threshold)."
Well you aren't pointing anything out wrong.
So I guess were all done here.
If there is a basic rule being broken let me know what it is.
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
Wargear is permitted to modify and it is doing so.
If you think otherwise point out the rules I break.
Do you agree that only rad grenades have this rule and that not all wargear have this rule?
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the victim's Instant Death threshold)."
State your point, the answer to the question is obvious.
Unless you feel enfeebled otherwise.
The attempt to be coy is boring.
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
Wargear is permitted to modify and it is doing so.
If you think otherwise point out the rules I break.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the victim's Instant Death threshold)."
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the victim's Instant Death threshold)."
Ceann wrote:It breaking the rules is your opinion.
Page 8 states wargear is allowed to subtract.
It is subtracting, what rule is being broken?
Just because it is allowed to do something doesn't mean it doesn't break the normal rules. The normal rules for Wargear is that they don't modify, just that they can. In order for it to be part of the game's rules, it would have to be a standard thing. -1T is not standard for Wargear.
In addition, the subject isn't about what Wargear can or cannot be doing, it is about what happens when they do the modification. Some Wargear do modify Characteristics, this is to let you know that these things happen, not as a standard accomplishment.
Where is the subject of Wargear in the rulebook?
Ceann wrote:I don't have my codex with me at the moment if you have some point you are failing to make about pistols then state it rather than alluding to it and wondering why I didn't come back with the bone you were looking for.
It isn't anything in a codex. It is a Weapon Type in the BRB.
Ceann wrote:Chapter tactics are identified on a data sheet as a special rule. From what I recall codex do not commonly have dedicated special rules sections, being located in the appendix is for ease of access. The important part is that it is labeled as a special rule.
In the section called "Appendix" it has a sub-section called "Space Marine Special Rules". The next sub-section is called "Chapter Tactics".
And again, it is not found in the rulebook's special rules.
Ceann wrote:What unusual grenades do is irrelevant, I understand it is a box with text in it. Above the box it details the circumstances under which you consult said box. Making a melee attack replacement is that circumstance, which we are not doing. Anything in that box is therefore void of relevance.
It doesn't say to address the breakout box. It says to look below in the regular run of the rules. Do you understand the purpose of a breakout box?
Ceann wrote:Only one model in a unit throws a grenade, that model does not make attacks, the others do. For assualt, they are not making a shooting attack, the rules for grenades assaulting is that they provide something when equipped.
Assault Grenades only work for the model possessing them, not for the unit which has at least one model with the Grenade. A Terminator Captain Charging through Terrain will be striking at Initiative 1, no matter how many Assault Grenades are in the unit.
But they don't have a Melee profile and your assertion was that they have to trade their attacks in order to use their special rules if they didn't have a Melee profile.
Ceann wrote:Is moving more than 6 breaking a rule... not sure if you are being intentionally dense here. Units have a unit type, each unit type dictates it's base movement and rules attached to that unit type. Probably why unit type is listed on datasheets. Weapons have a base type, heavy assault pistol etc and have the base rules for those types.
That wasn't the question. Is moving more than 6" breaking the game's rules?
Here is the answer:
MOVEMENT DISTANCE Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on.
It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.
There is nothing in this section which states Unit Type defining how far a model may go. By this paragraph, all models may move up to 6" and any distance more than that is breaking the rules. Unit Type is also not listed under Special Rules, but given its own section on any current army list entry.
The introduction only states that while these rules are for Infantry, it only states that other units may move in different ways, but nothing about distances.
Ceann wrote:It almost seems like you think there are a small number of base rules and everything is a special rule modifying those rules, this is not the case.
Actually that is the case.
The definition of a base rule is:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
The definition of a special rule is:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
So, I am well aware of what constitutes which type of rule. I have been working with these concepts for quite some time now and have seen them evolve over several iterations. It seems that you are new to them as you can't seem to grasp how they work and have worked.
Tsol wrote: Not particularly invested in such a heated debate, but I'm going to look up the Rad grenades rules right now and see what it says.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was very curious, because I've been playing alot of skitarrii/Ad Mec and combining Rad grenades with Vanguards and Infiltrators seems like a fun combo.
From Inquisition Codex---
"Rad grenades: During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the
end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
-----
The wording to me reads fairly clearly that this does not stack, it would however stack with other modifiers, such as Rad armor or some other Toughness modifiers, but not with other Rad Grendaes, but I could understand why there is some doubt.
It does not stack if you have multiple grenades in the same unit. However it does stack if different units with them charge the same unit.
Please remember that Vanguard have a special rule, in their special rule section of their data sheet, called Rad Saturation.
Special rules cannot stack.
Rad Grenades however do not have a special rule.
Just like brain mines don't have one, or psyammo, or a psyocculum.
Note you quoted the rules exactly as they read on the entry, nowhere does it state they are a special rule nor do they have a profile stating a special rule that they have, such as luminagen, melta, haywire etc. Also grenades replace a shooting or melee attack, these do neither, it is just an effect that happens.
I see what you mean, but to follow that, you must make a very large assumption and do away with contemporary workings (which is wholly understandable, as this is from an older codex where their wording is not as careful and throughout as it is now). What I mean by that is, generally speaking, unless stated otherwise these things do not stack. And currently, new rules and updated rules explicitly state when they do or if they can. As mentioned just before, it may be unfair to hold this circumstance to current standards, but it's better to follow the rule of thumb and precedent than to hope for exceptions.
With precedent in mind and due to the wording of the actual wargear* (listed above in the quote). Which I fully admit, is indeed nitpicking and subject to time and even edition change, the description implies only one effect. But this is vague enough where I'm going to send a message to the GW community rule team and hope they respond because I hope I'm wrong and you are right. I would love to spam these bad boys with my Skitarrii Vanguards!
It isn't up to you to decide what is and is not normal. I would assert that wargear modifys stats all of the time. When I take a melee weapon with + str im modifying a stat. When I take psyammo I am modifying a stat, when I upgrade my PA to terminator armor I an upgrading stats. If I take a second weapon I am modifying a stat. Just because it happens to be a negative application in this circumstance you want to call it out as not normal.
Really? Obviously pistol is in the BRB, you still haven't made whatever point it is about the pistol that you were trying to make besides making nagging comments about pistols. My obvious intention was to indicate I didn't have the document on hand, but clearly that made no difference to you and a snide retort was required. So STILL alluding to whatever your point was that is too difficult to type out.
Chapter Tactics are listed as a special rule on their data sheet and apparently in the appendix also. That is wonderful. Rad Grenades are not listed as one at all. Go to the SM codex and look at the units data sheet. SPECIAL RULES : Chapter Tactics. Page 13 BRB. The Advanced Rules that apply to a unit are indicated on its Army List Entry. Looks the BRB notates it as one just fine. Not that a codex doesn't already supersede the BRB anyway.
Are rad grenades used as a melee weapon? No. Do you know what a melee attack is? The entire section from Vehicles, Gun Emplacements and MC's is all about explaining what unusual grenades are and how they work. It is an explanation for grenades that have to be "clamped into place to work" because normally grenades are used to make a shooting attack. Attempting to put it off as "its referring to the other physical page by saying see below" is obfuscation.
A terminator captain charging through terrain is not making a melee attack he is initiating an assault. You cannot make a melee attack with a frag grenade and per your scenario is he is not trying to do so, not that he could because it doesn't have a melee profile. He is also not taking the action of replacing his melee attack with a grenade. Not sure what point this was meant to make.
Is moving more than 6" breaking a rule. No. Page 62 BRB.
"So far we've discussed the basic rule as they pertain to infantry, the most important and common unit type." As they pretain to infantry, meaning there are basic rules that apply to other things that are not infantry, feel free to read the pages at your discretion. The rest of the section details the unit types, the basic rules for them, like how far they can move, and a section for each unit, and a section titled Special Rules detailing what...special rules, they actually have. Strange.
Hmm if they were ALL special rules why would it specifically tell us what special rules where there? And those same special rules found in the special rules section of the BRB? I wonder. Maybe because each basic unit type has its own basic rules, just like each weapon type has its own basic rules and anything that is a special rule is called a special rule in no uncertain terms. Or that we have only discussed infantry so far as the basic rules pertain too them...
Yes and you seem to think that a beast or calv is modifying a base 6" movement for infantry. However in the units section it clearly tells you what the movement for each is based on the unit type.
Are you well aware? You cannot seem to discern that the unit types found in the units section provide the basic rules for each type of unit. Or that things labeled specifically as special rules are the only things that are special rules.
Is there a rule allowing wargear to modify stats? Yes.
What rule is being broken? None.
Point me to the page, of the rule, that is being broken.
Tsol wrote: Not particularly invested in such a heated debate, but I'm going to look up the Rad grenades rules right now and see what it says.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was very curious, because I've been playing alot of skitarrii/Ad Mec and combining Rad grenades with Vanguards and Infiltrators seems like a fun combo.
From Inquisition Codex---
"Rad grenades: During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the
end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
-----
The wording to me reads fairly clearly that this does not stack, it would however stack with other modifiers, such as Rad armor or some other Toughness modifiers, but not with other Rad Grendaes, but I could understand why there is some doubt.
It does not stack if you have multiple grenades in the same unit. However it does stack if different units with them charge the same unit.
Please remember that Vanguard have a special rule, in their special rule section of their data sheet, called Rad Saturation.
Special rules cannot stack.
Rad Grenades however do not have a special rule.
Just like brain mines don't have one, or psyammo, or a psyocculum.
Note you quoted the rules exactly as they read on the entry, nowhere does it state they are a special rule nor do they have a profile stating a special rule that they have, such as luminagen, melta, haywire etc. Also grenades replace a shooting or melee attack, these do neither, it is just an effect that happens.
I see what you mean, but to follow that, you must make a very large assumption and do away with contemporary workings (which is wholly understandable, as this is from an older codex where their wording is not as careful and throughout as it is now). What I mean by that is, generally speaking, unless stated otherwise these things do not stack. And currently, new rules and updated rules explicitly state when they do or if they can. As mentioned just before, it may be unfair to hold this circumstance to current standards, but it's better to follow the rule of thumb and precedent than to hope for exceptions.
With precedent in mind and due to the wording of the actual wargear* (listed above in the quote). Which I fully admit, is indeed nitpicking and subject to time and even edition change, the description implies only one effect. But this is vague enough where I'm going to send a message to the GW community rule team and hope they respond because I hope I'm wrong and you are right. I would love to spam these bad boys with my Skitarrii Vanguards!
The newer codex, Imperial Agents has the exact same wording, so it is not a matter of consulting old text.
I will also point out that Rad Grenades are not even technically grenades other than their name.
They do not make or replace any shooting attack or melee attack, you don't even roll a dice, they just happen as a static effect.
Ceann wrote: It isn't up to you to decide what is and is not normal. I would assert that wargear modifys stats all of the time. When I take a melee weapon with + str im modifying a stat. When I take psyammo I am modifying a stat, when I upgrade my PA to terminator armor I an upgrading stats. If I take a second weapon I am modifying a stat. Just because it happens to be a negative application in this circumstance you want to call it out as not normal.
I didn't say it was up to me. I am saying what the rulebook says. Nothing states that all Wargear modify stats, just that they can. Changing a model's stats is breaking the game's rules outside of any special rule.
Ceann wrote: Really? Obviously pistol is in the BRB, you still haven't made whatever point it is about the pistol that you were trying to make besides making nagging comments about pistols. My obvious intention was to indicate I didn't have the document on hand, but clearly that made no difference to you and a snide retort was required. So STILL alluding to whatever your point was that is too difficult to type out.
I am not being snide. You don't like what I'm saying so you are applying an emotion to it.
Pistols carry the ability to count as a Close Combat Weapon during the Assault Phase. Is this normal? If so, where is this stated in the Shooting Phase or at any point that is not a Pistol? Why are Pistols called out for this ability alone?
Ceann wrote: Chapter Tactics are listed as a special rule on their data sheet and apparently in the appendix also. That is wonderful. Rad Grenades are not listed as one at all. Go to the SM codex and look at the units data sheet. SPECIAL RULES : Chapter Tactics. Page 13 BRB. The Advanced Rules that apply to a unit are indicated on its Army List Entry. Looks the BRB notates it as one just fine. Not that a codex doesn't already supersede the BRB anyway.
Again, this is about "location". Relentless is listed as part of a couple unit types, does this make them not special rules? You are being very picky about what is and isn't a special rule, after all.
Ceann wrote: Are rad grenades used as a melee weapon? No. Do you know what a melee attack is? The entire section from Vehicles, Gun Emplacements and MC's is all about explaining what unusual grenades are and how they work. It is an explanation for grenades that have to be "clamped into place to work" because normally grenades are used to make a shooting attack. Attempting to put it off as "its referring to the other physical page by saying see below" is obfuscation.
Whoa, big words there.
I am not trying to put it off. Do you recognize that "Unusual Grenades" is a break-out and the purpose of a break out?
In common writing, "see below" means either further down the page, or further in the book.
Ceann wrote: A terminator captain charging through terrain is not making a melee attack he is initiating an assault. You cannot make a melee attack with a frag grenade and per your scenario is he is not trying to do so, not that he could because it doesn't have a melee profile. He is also not taking the action of replacing his melee attack with a grenade. Not sure what point this was meant to make.
You have a hard time remembering your own points then. You were going off about how Unusual Grenades without a Melee profile had to sacrifice their Attacks to use them. I've stated this a couple times now.
You were then saying Assault Grenades only needed to be used by one model. Hence the example.
A Terminator Captain Charging through Terrain will carry an affect with him. That affect will be carried with him when he goes to make an Attack. I was using a bit of short-hand phraseology which you are apparently unfamiliar with.
A Terminator Captain under that affect would not be affected by any other model's Assault Grenades.
Ceann wrote: Is moving more than 6" breaking a rule. No. Page 62 BRB.
"So far we've discussed the basic rule as they pertain to infantry, the most important and common unit type." As they pretain to infantry, meaning there are basic rules that apply to other things that are not infantry, feel free to read the pages at your discretion. The rest of the section details the unit types, the basic rules for them, like how far they can move, and a section for each unit, and a section titled Special Rules detailing what...special rules, they actually have. Strange.
Hmm if they were ALL special rules why would it specifically tell us what special rules where there? And those same special rules found in the special rules section of the BRB? I wonder. Maybe because each basic unit type has its own basic rules, just like each weapon type has its own basic rules and anything that is a special rule is called a special rule in no uncertain terms.
Yes and you seem to think that a beast or calv is modifying a base 6" movement for infantry. However in the units section it clearly tells you what the movement for each is based on the unit type.
Are you well aware? You cannot seem to discern that the unit types found in the units section provide the basic rules for each type of unit. Or that things labeled specifically as special rules are the only things that are special rules.
They may be basic to those unit types, but those unit types are not the rules of the game. Infantry rules are the rules of the game. In fact, this is mentioned at several points.
The part you quoted from the BRB also continues on that the unit types only, "change the way they move", not the amount they move. Indeed, I actually pointed that out in the second paragraph.
Are you well aware that, aside from Infantry, all Unit Types are special rules and also carry what are called "Universal Special Rules". "Universal Special Rules" are the ones found in the back of the BRB before Weapons.
Here's an example of what I mentioned:
Infantry units include all types of foot soldiers, whether human or alien. A typical unit of Infantry is between five and ten models strong but they can be much larger.
In rare cases, an Infantry unit may comprise only a single model. Infantry are fairly slow moving, but can cross almost any terrain (given enough time) and make the best use of cover to avoid enemy fire.
Infantry are the most common and dependable units in Warhammer 40,000. As the bulk of the rules are concerned with them, there are no additional rules to present here.
So any rules making a unit not Infantry are special rules.
Ceann wrote: Is there a rule allowing wargear to modify stats? Yes.
What rule is being broken? None.
Point me to the page, of the rule, that is being broken.
An example of when something happening isn't blanket permission, just how something can normally be found, nor is it standard practice for all Wargear to reduce T by 1. Just because Wargear can do something doesn't mean they all do. But all modifiers are performed by Wargear or Special Rules, and it is that part that page 8 is stated to concern itself with.
And has been pointed out, Unusual Grenades (the ones without profiles) are performed in their special rules. Kind of hard to perform special rules if it isn't a special rule or not carrying a special rule.
You are way to locked in to your definition of a special rule. Accept the definition provided by the introduction of Special Rules. Accept the definition of the basic rules of the game provided by Basic vs Advanced. It will cause less of a tendency for an aneurysm. Almost as much as ignoring a certain col.
GW has sent back an unsatisfactory no, for does not stack.
I'll quote them here."Hey ***redacted*** - well, we are not the rules writers, so we can't give you an "official" answer. But we usually play it here that things tend to stack if the rule says it does. This might be one that you have to discuss with your group pre-game and come up with your own house rule for."
That's the response I got. And to be frank it's not a bad one either. I'll play a couple test games with my buddy and see if the stacking is abusive and/or game breaking.
Full disclosure: I edited my real name out of the quote.
The good old meaningless play it as you like we dont make the rules answer
It has been out for years and is a well known loop hole
It is not breaking because it only stacks in separate units and so I have to have 4 inquisitors with 60pt of rad grenades make it in to combat to auto kill one squad of space marines and due to most players limiting formation you just can't get the volume of inquisitors to make it reliable
So your entire arguments are based on this fabrication that things that are not called special rules, are special rules, without being told that they are special rules based on your own opinion of if you think it breaks the game or not. All of your interpretations are based off this.
Page 5 Appendix
"The appendix contains a compendium of special rules, weapon profiles and psychic powers."
What is one of the definitions of compendium?
A full list or inventory. If it isn't in the special rules section or in an army list entry, or specifically stated, it is not a special rule.
Page 13 "Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless stated otherwise."
I guess moving more than 6" would be stating otherwise now wouldn't it? It goes on to list pages and state...
"These are all the rules you will need for infantry models."
Not for all models, for infantry.
Page 156
We've presented them all in a SINGLE SECTION to make your life easier when trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
Not sprinkled throughout the book with ambiguous terms. ALL...SINGLE... SECTION.
Your note about infantry in the units section, they used infantry in all of the EXAMPLES to explain the rules, hence no additional rules are being presented to the player in this section because they just used those units in all of the EXAMPLES.
If it is not in the single section, or notated in its army list entry it isn't a special rule.
Ceann wrote: So your entire arguments are based on this fabrication that things that are not called special rules, are special rules, without being told that they are special rules based on your own opinion of if you think it breaks the game or not. All of your interpretations are based off this.
Incorrect. Wargear carry affects that are called special rules as they fit the description of special rules, but since they are tied to equipment instead of an inherent skill they are listed under Wargear.
Ceann wrote: Page 5 Appendix
"The appendix contains a compendium of special rules, weapon profiles and psychic powers."
What is one of the definitions of compendium?
A full list or inventory. If it isn't in the special rules section or in an army list entry, or specifically stated, it is not a special rule.
Page 13 "Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless stated otherwise."
I guess moving more than 6" would be stating otherwise now wouldn't it? It goes on to list pages and state...
"These are all the rules you will need for infantry models."
Not for all models, for infantry.
Page 156
We've presented them all in a SINGLE SECTION to make your life easier when trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
Not sprinkled throughout the book with ambiguous terms. ALL...SINGLE... SECTION.
Your note about infantry in the units section, they used infantry in all of the EXAMPLES to explain the rules, hence no additional rules are being presented to the player in this section because they just used those units in all of the EXAMPLES.
If it is not in the single section, or notated in its army list entry it isn't a special rule.
Continue on with that:
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex or Army List Entry.
And then we have:
Unusual Grenades Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
So, while Wargear isn't technically Special Rules in and of themselves, they carry Special Rules within them.
And Special Rules cannot stack unless they specifically state they do. The Rad Grenades do not state they stack.
Are rad grenades listed under an army entry as having a special rule? No.
Do they have a special rule? No.
If they had a special rule you could point out what keyword special rule it had, it has none. Just like an iron halo has none, it is permitted per page 8 to modify base stats and that is being done a rule is not being broken.
Chapter tactics is a special rule, as notated on the data sheet.
You have relics let's take for example a solar staff. It has the special rules blind and solar pulse, solar pulse explicitly states it is a special rule. It has specifically stated special rules attached to it, just like units or other wargear specifically have special rules attached to them.
Look at gloom prism, it is a special rule? No. It states it grants the adamantium will special rule.
Ceann wrote: Are rad grenades listed under an army entry as having a special rule? No.
No, but they have one per the unusual Grenades rule. And they do something that not all Grenades do. Therefore, they have a special rule.
Ceann wrote: Do they have a special rule? No.If they had a special rule you could point out what keyword special rule it had, it has none. Just like an iron halo has none, it is permitted per page 8 to modify base stats and that is being done a rule is not being broken.
Per the definition of Unusual Grenades. Keywords are not needed.
Page 8 is not defining the rules for Wargear, it is defining the rules for Modifiers.
Ceann wrote: Chapter tactics is a special rule, as notated on the data sheet.
But noted as such where it defines what it is. That was the point.
Ceann wrote: You have relics let's take for example a solar staff. It has the special rules blind and solar pulse, solar pulse explicitly states it is a special rule. It has specifically stated special rules attached to it, just like units or other wargear specifically have special rules attached to them.
Solar Staff is also a Weapon. Inquisition Rad Grenades are not Weapons. The Inquisition still carry some affects that are not part of the normal Movement, Shooting, and Assault rules.
Ceann wrote: Look at gloom prism, it is a special rule? No. It states it grants the adamantium will special rule.
No the Gloom Prism is not a special rule, but it carries a special rule. It uses an already defined Universal Special Rule (USR) as it is already written out. Can you find the USR which defaults to a -1T? No, so it writes it fully out.
The point is that not all Special Rules are as exclusive as you think they are. They can be found in many areas of the system, and not just exclusive to the one section of the rulebook. This has been pointed out to you several times and you have ignored them.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game unless stated otherwise.
Does this effect apply to all models? Yes.
So all grenades reduce Toughness according to your claim.
No, any model that interacts with this wargear in this fashion. No model is treated differently than others. Basic rules apply to all models.
Does skyfire apply to all models? No. Hence skyfire is a special rule, and no surprise it is located in the special rules section.
Can you name a model that would assault a unit equipped with rad grenades and not get -1? Then that would be a special rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unusual grenades is applied to the criteria stated above unusual grenades. We are not meeting that criteria. By your definition then an omnispex is an unusual grenade because it doesn't have a profile. Terminator armor is an unusual grenade because it doesn't have a profile. If this wargear was named rad bombs you wouldn't even be trying to make this as an argument and continually disregard the criteria for the sake of making your point.
You are right it is the page for modifiers and rad grenades are modifying. No basic rule is being broken. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what is and is not a special rule.
Yes the solar staff is a weapon, so it has a profile, assault grenades and other grenades listed in the grenades section also have profiles because they make attacks. Unusual grenades are grenade rule for making a melee attack with grenades that do not have a melee profile. Do rad grenades make an attack? No? None? Then they are not a weapon and do not have a profile.
Special rules seem to be exactly exclusive as I have stated the BRB definitely specified the exact location where special rules are located in a single section. It says there are others and guess what there are. Like chapter tactics, or rad saturation, or reanimate protocols, all of which are defined on their army list entry just like we are told is where they will be.
At what point will this thread realise that ceanne doesn't have a clue and is either deliberately trolling or genuinely believes black is white in the face of everyone agreeing and trying to explain it to him.
It doesn't matter what you say the logic of the arguments or the raw he's just going to disagree and it's a pity because his trolling clouds the real debate read the past 3 pages 4/5 is everyone explaining why he's wrong while he says I'm right
I mean, we have the definition of what a special rule is. It's not specific to any section or keyword. Changing the definition isn't going to help this discussion.
I am not trolling. There is clearly a vast misunderstanding of what is and is not a special rule and I am trying to clarify it.
Explain to me why the BRB states the section dedicated to special rules has ALL the special rules and that any other special rules will be found on army entry lists? And yes it does say the list is not all inclusive but the things like chapter tactics, necron protocols, rad saturation all of these other things that are defined as special rules in their own codex are exactly what the brb is referring too.
Why does it say this?
Why do army list entries have special rules sections if by your terminology anything that isn't a basic infantry rule is a special rule.
The only arguments any of you are making is vague insinuations that things are and are not special rules in contradiction to what the special rule splash page says and the special rules section itself which states ALL special rules in the BRB are located in that section.
How am I being the illogical one here?
The only things I have called a special rule are the things labeled as such.
You asked me do all grenades give a minus. That is silly. Do rad grenades threat all models the same? Yes, no rule is being broken. Does skyfire treat all models the same? No. Good thing it is a special rule. Does a pistol have a special rule? No.
Maybe you should try to clarify why I am saying you are wrong instead of just assuming you are correct.
"Most of the commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.
Many troop have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex or army list entry".
We are told the ability of this unit, is a special rule.
This is a unique ability laid out in his army entry list in his codex.
Skitarii war plate, this is wargear that the skitarii vanguard is wearing it modifys his save roll, wargear is permitted in the brb to modify stats, he is given a 4+ save. Skitarii war plate is not a special rule.
I don't have the Skitarii book to compare, but if the Skitsrii warplate has an effect that alters the basic rules, it is a special rule. If it doesn't, it isn't. That's how the definition of special rules works.
Sir... Page 8 of the BRB states that some wargear modifys stats. This is a basic rule for wargear.
Rad grenades modify a stat, except in this case it is a negative modifier so people are upset with them.
No one can point to the basic rule that is being broken.
Rad grenades are not specified as having a special rule but people assert that it does. Even though the brb states where special rules are located. People are using their own ideas about what bending or breaking a rule is to use a special rule paint brush.
Ah, haha, yes basic rules intro text being used as a defining argument point. I like it.
I see what you mean, but that's not a rule saying "Wargear is always allowed to modify stats" it's just saying it can happen, and yeah there are examples of wargear modifying stats, but it's usually an inherent thing "represented on profile" or stuff like bikes and jetbikes.
The difference with Rad grenades, is they have rules text giving a specific situation where stats are aggressively modified. It's a special rule if e'er I saw one. The only reason it's even worth discussing is the authors got lazy and didn't give it a keyword.
As to why it even matters, rad grenades are a heck of a lot more common in Heresy games, so it can be a big deal.
Ceann wrote: Right... because you won't claim where it has been used wrong. So you have an argument you wont make so therefore my argument is invalid.... lmao.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rad Grenades - During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the vitctims Instant Death threshold).
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
So what's the problem? The Rad Grenades rules themselves tell us everything we need to know, whether you want to call them a special rule or not. A unit is assaulted by 2 units with rad grenades? Is it a turn in which a unit is assualted by a unit equipped with rad grenades? Yes, so the unit suffers -1 toughness. Does is suffer -2 T? No, because it's the same turn, and it says during a turn in which a unit is assaulted by a unit with rad grenades there's a -1 T. It doesn't say -1 per unit assaulting with rad grenades, it's just a binary "is the enemy unit assaulted or assaulting a unit with rad grenades" yes/no. If yes, there's -1 T. It's a moot point whether it's a special rule or if it's an unusual grenade - the grenade description itself tells us what we need to know
Ceann wrote: Right... because you won't claim where it has been used wrong. So you have an argument you wont make so therefore my argument is invalid.... lmao.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rad Grenades - During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the vitctims Instant Death threshold).
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
So what's the problem? The Rad Grenades rules themselves tell us everything we need to know, whether you want to call them a special rule or not. A unit is assaulted by 2 units with rad grenades? Is it a turn in which a unit is assualted by a unit equipped with rad grenades? Yes, so the unit suffers -1 toughness. Does is suffer -2 T? No, because it's the same turn, and it says during a turn in which a unit is assaulted by a unit with rad grenades there's a -1 T. It doesn't say -1 per unit assaulting with rad grenades, it's just a binary "is the enemy unit assaulted or assaulting a unit with rad grenades" yes/no. If yes, there's -1 T. It's a moot point whether it's a special rule or if it's an unusual grenade - the grenade description itself tells us what we need to know
I think that this is potentially the key point here, though I also subscribe to it actually being a special rule as well. In addition (heads up: HIWPI), the spirit of the rules is that things don't stack if coming from the same point of origin (rule, wargear etc) so it's unusual to expect that this example is the exception.
Special rules are notated as special rules. By what you are saying the first unit to assault a unit would get bonus attacks for weilding a pair of chainswords assaulting but the second unit wielding a pair of chain swords would not because the plus attack special rule has already been used. This is the same comparably scenario except with a plus instead of a malus. PER page 8 wargear can modify stats, these are some situations in which they do.
This is why the basic rule that is being broken by the grenades has to be identified, anything else is just speculation.
Ceann wrote: Right... because you won't claim where it has been used wrong. So you have an argument you wont make so therefore my argument is invalid.... lmao.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rad Grenades - During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase(this does affect the vitctims Instant Death threshold).
1. Rad Grenades are wargear.
2. Rad Grenades are not specified as having a special rule.
3. Page 8 BRB - Modifiers - Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively...
4. No rule is being broken.
So what's the problem? The Rad Grenades rules themselves tell us everything we need to know, whether you want to call them a special rule or not. A unit is assaulted by 2 units with rad grenades? Is it a turn in which a unit is assualted by a unit equipped with rad grenades? Yes, so the unit suffers -1 toughness. Does is suffer -2 T? No, because it's the same turn, and it says during a turn in which a unit is assaulted by a unit with rad grenades there's a -1 T. It doesn't say -1 per unit assaulting with rad grenades, it's just a binary "is the enemy unit assaulted or assaulting a unit with rad grenades" yes/no. If yes, there's -1 T. It's a moot point whether it's a special rule or if it's an unusual grenade - the grenade description itself tells us what we need to know
I think that this is potentially the key point here, though I also subscribe to it actually being a special rule as well. In addition (heads up: HIWPI), the spirit of the rules is that things don't stack if coming from the same point of origin (rule, wargear etc) so it's unusual to expect that this example is the exception.
The difference is that most things that do this have a special.rule that prevents them stacking because you cannot apply a special rule twice. These do not have a special rule, such as rad saturation.
That doesn't matter - is it a round in which the unit is assaulted by a unit with rad grenades? It's a yes/no answer, not a "count up the number of units" answer.
Your argument is moot. That criteria only matters if rad grenades have a special rule for the effect, which they do not.
If you can demonstrate what basic rule they are breaking feel free.
Ceann wrote: Your argument is moot. That criteria only matters if rad grenades have a special rule for the effect, which they do not.
If you can demonstrate what basic rule they are breaking feel free.
It's not what they are breaking, it's what YOU are breaking.
Ceann wrote: Your argument is moot. That criteria only matters if rad grenades have a special rule for the effect, which they do not.
If you can demonstrate what basic rule they are breaking feel free.
Actually its about following what the rule of the Wargear actually states. It's based on if something happened in a time period, then there is no way for it to stack. If it happens based on the number of events that occurs, then it may possibly stack, except that it still has to state it stacks in order to.
Just for the record of following this thread, Ceann has quoted several rules per the tenets to support his stance while basically everyone else has pulled a Col_ of only partially quoting rules and then repeating said excerpts of rules over and over.
Not a single person has given a plausible responses as to why they randomly use the Unusual Grenades rule without first meeting the qualifier. You are basically making a RAI assumption to classify Rad Grenades as Unusual in direct contradiction of the RAW.
The only counter with any legs is that once -1 T has been met, the rules have semantically been met.
Not a single person has given a plausible responses as to why they randomly use the Unusual Grenades rule without first meeting the qualifier. You are basically making a RAI assumption to classify Rad Grenades as Unusual in direct contradiction of the RAW.
.
Yes and the rules for the wargear state two circumstances, assaulting or being assaulted as the critera to "suffer-1 toughness".
If I assault a unit twice you are asserting that the second trigger does not work because the effect has already been applied. However an effect not being able to be applied twice is for special rules.
The rules for the wargear rad grenades are the basic rules contained in the IA or inquisition codex for that wargear. Skitarii Vanguard have a special rule rad saturation, because it is a special rule it does not stack. Skitarii war plate is not a special rule. If it was then the bonus to the unit to its armor save would only apply the first time it was fired at and the second time he would have no armor save right? Because he already benefited from the save? This is why wargear have special rules, not ARE special rules.
Does the data sheet for rad grenades state they have any special rules? No.
In order for it to have one it must be breaking a rule. Page 8 gives wargear the ability to modifying stats.
Basic rules state they apply to all models. Is there a model that can assault a unit with rad grenades and not receive a -1? No. So the effect it provides, apply to all models.
Does skyfire apply equally to all models? No, it applies to models with flying. It is a special rule. It breaks the normal snap fire rules for shooting at a flyer that normally affects all models.
Does melta apply equally to all models? No, it applies only to vehicles, so it is a special rule. It adds an extra d6 that under normal shooting all models would not have.
These are both, amazingly, located in the special rules section.
Show me the basic rule that rad grenades are breaking, we are allowed to modify stats per page 8 with wargear.
Not a single person has given a plausible responses as to why they randomly use the Unusual Grenades rule without first meeting the qualifier. You are basically making a RAI assumption to classify Rad Grenades as Unusual in direct contradiction of the RAW.
.
Do rad grenades have a profile?
Does an omnispex have a profile? Does terminator armor? How about Camo nets? These are all unusual grenades too right? All gear without a profile are grenades?
The criteria for unusual grenades is listed directly above unusual grenades and it is using a grenade to replace melee attacks on a vehicle, MC, or emplacement. If we are not making a melee attack with a grenade then we have not met the criteria to "use the below" which is unusual grenades.
Are we making a melee attack with rad grenades? No? Then we have no need to "use the below" in fact this takes place when assaults are declared these rules couldn't even apply if you wanted them too as you are not even in the sub phase for melee.
Perhaps the Unusual Grenades thing is a red herring. Per the wording of the rule all that matters is that a unit has charged or been charged by a unit with Rad Grenades. Whether that happens once or more doesn't seem to matter, you suffer a simple -1 Toughness regardless.
The criteria for unusual grenades is listed directly above unusual grenades and it is using a grenade to replace melee attacks on a vehicle, MC, or emplacement. If we are not making a melee attack with a grenade then we have not met the criteria to "use the below" which is unusual grenades.
Are we making a melee attack with rad grenades? No? Then we have no need to "use the below" in fact this takes place when assaults are declared these rules couldn't even apply if you wanted them too as you are not even in the sub phase for melee.
Are you even reading the rules? You are spreading misinformation. Here is what the actual rules say.
Spoiler:
Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
ASSAULT GRENADES
The section on Unusual grenades is formatted as a 'break out' and discusses the exception (grenades without profiles) to what was mentioned above. The 'break out' is a self-contained definition for what an unusual grenade is. By default, Unusual Grenades are not used as a Melee weapon and so do not replace a Melee attack as per usual grenades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xlDuke wrote: Perhaps the Unusual Grenades thing is a red herring. Per the wording of the rule all that matters is that a unit has charged or been charged by a unit with Rad Grenades. Whether that happens once or more doesn't seem to matter, you suffer a simple -1 Toughness regardless.
Correct. No one has proven that the effect is cumulative.
See Zimko quote below.
Zimko wrote:The exact wording of the rule is this: 'During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase'
The rule is asking you if the enemy unit has been charged by a unit equipped with rad grenades. It doesn't care how many times it has been charged. Only that 'during a turn' it has been charged. Thus the modifier only applies once. It would need specific wording that tells you to apply it multiple times.
Does an omnispex have a profile? Does terminator armor? How about Camo nets? These are all unusual grenades too right? All gear without a profile are grenades?.
I feel like this discussion has lost it's logical cohesion... Grenades without a profile are unusual grenades. An omnispex is not a grenade.
Goodbye.
No grenade has a melee profile. None. Grenades are used as a replacement for a shooting attack. None of the grenades listed in the grenades section have a MELEE profile. They have profiles attributed to them that they may use in place of making melee attacks which is the text above that you cut off in your quote.
If grenades had a melee profile they would grant an extra attack or be allowed to be selected as a melee weapon. Because they do not have the melee rule you cannot choose them. The unusual grenades rule allows you to choose them without having a profile, for melee, because that is the profile you are attempting to use.
You have highlighted in red what unusual grenades are but you cut off the above that determines in what manner unusual grenades are used. If you are not using them in that manner, which is above where you cut off, then they are not unusual grenades
Brother Ramses wrote: Just for the record of following this thread, Ceann has quoted several rules per the tenets to support his stance while basically everyone else has pulled a Col_ of only partially quoting rules and then repeating said excerpts of rules over and over.
Not a single person has given a plausible responses as to why they randomly use the Unusual Grenades rule without first meeting the qualifier. You are basically making a RAI assumption to classify Rad Grenades as Unusual in direct contradiction of the RAW.
The only counter with any legs is that once -1 T has been met, the rules have semantically been met.
Actually we have. That you have not liked them is what happened. In order to apply Unusual Grenades as you and Caenn have submitted you have to ignore that section was a breakout and apply it as part of the normal set of instructions.
No grenade has a melee profile. None. Grenades are used as a replacement for a shooting attack. None of the grenades listed in the grenades section have a MELEE profile. They have profiles attributed to them that they may use in place of making melee attacks which is the text above that you cut off in your quote.
If grenades had a melee profile they would grant an extra attack or be allowed to be selected as a melee weapon. Because they do not have the melee rule you cannot choose them. The unusual grenades rule allows you to choose them without having a profile, for melee, because that is the profile you are attempting to use.
You have highlighted in red what unusual grenades are but you cut off the above that determines in what manner unusual grenades are used. If you are not using them in that manner, which is above where you cut off, then they are not unusual grenades
To be fair, they do have profiles which have instructions to be used in Melee. In order to not consider them Melee profiles you would have to ignore the rules that precede the profile.
Does an omnispex have a profile? Does terminator armor? How about Camo nets? These are all unusual grenades too right? All gear without a profile are grenades?.
I feel like this discussion has lost it's logical cohesion... Grenades without a profile are unusual grenades. An omnispex is not a grenade.
Goodbye.
And grenades that don't make a shooting or melee are actually grenades how? Other than by name. The requirement for unusual grenades is replacing a melee attack, the argument you were going to make isn't relevant because you ignored the criteria for unusual grenades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Ramses wrote: You can Thunderwolf Mount to the list of wargear that modifies stats without it being a special rule.
The only person trying to actually see the point being made.
If wargear were special rules by default then an ap2 weapon could only kill a terminator if he rolled a 1, because being a special rule he would ignore ap2 as his save would be 2 plus no matter what. There are so many problems applying a blanket special rules to things not identified as special rules.
The effects not stacking is a attribute of a special rule. We are not told to ever check if a malus has already been applied we are just told to apply one. Two skitarii vanguard on the same unit would only be malus 1 because it is a special rule. This is the difference between the two.
Does an omnispex have a profile? Does terminator armor? How about Camo nets? These are all unusual grenades too right? All gear without a profile are grenades?.
I feel like this discussion has lost it's logical cohesion... Grenades without a profile are unusual grenades. An omnispex is not a grenade.
Goodbye.
And grenades that don't make a shooting or melee are actually grenades how? Other than by name. The requirement for unusual grenades is replacing a melee attack, the argument you were going to make isn't relevant because you ignored the criteria for unusual grenades.
Why is the criterial for unusual grenades replacing a melee attack? It's said that unless specifically noted they don't get used in a melee attack (or are thrown). You don't make sense here.
Cienne may I make a suggestion we all know what you think you have made yourself clear.
we all agree that your wrong however there is nothing we can say to change your opinion and nothing you have not already said that will convince us
Would you allow the thread to continue under the assumption correctly or incorrectly that the grenades are a special rule and that they have a profile because the rules say they have a profile.
Because we cannot discuss the assumption with a wall of text side tracking us continually and you have not added anything constructive you did not add on pages 1 and 2 and this is going in circles which isn't helpfull
No grenade has a melee profile. None. Grenades are used as a replacement for a shooting attack. None of the grenades listed in the grenades section have a MELEE profile. They have profiles attributed to them that they may use in place of making melee attacks which is the text above that you cut off in your quote.
If grenades had a melee profile they would grant an extra attack or be allowed to be selected as a melee weapon. Because they do not have the melee rule you cannot choose them. The unusual grenades rule allows you to choose them without having a profile, for melee, because that is the profile you are attempting to use.
You have highlighted in red what unusual grenades are but you cut off the above that determines in what manner unusual grenades are used. If you are not using them in that manner, which is above where you cut off, then they are not unusual grenades
Again with the misinformation. Here is more of the text to show that you are having trouble reading.
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses. Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
ASSAULT GRENADES
Shooting
When a unit armed with assault grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
[Shooting Profile]
Assault
Models equipped with assault grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal Initiative in the ensuing combat.
". . . As explained below" does not refer to the section on Unusual Grenades, rather it is referring to the ensuing discussion about 'different grenades' with 'different profiles' starting with Assault Grenades. Unusual Grenades do not have profiles and so cannot be the referent for 'as explained below'. Unusual grenades have their own breakout section because they are the exception to what has already been discussed. The breakout section is a self-contained definition.
The effects not stacking is a attribute of a special rule. We are not told to ever check if a malus has already been applied we are just told to apply one. Two skitarii vanguard on the same unit would only be malus 1 because it is a special rule. This is the difference between the two.
You have to PROVE that the effect stacks. The wording indicates that the effect DOES NOT stack.
The exact wording of the rule is this: 'During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase'
The rule is asking you if the enemy unit has been charged by a unit equipped with rad grenades. It doesn't care how many times it has been charged. Only that 'during a turn' it has been charged. Thus the modifier only applies once. It would need specific wording that tells you to apply it multiple times.
xlDuke wrote: Perhaps the Unusual Grenades thing is a red herring. Per the wording of the rule all that matters is that a unit has charged or been charged by a unit with Rad Grenades. Whether that happens once or more doesn't seem to matter, you suffer a simple -1 Toughness regardless.
Like I said, the semantics argument is way stronger then the Special Rules/Unusual Grenades argument. However, I am trying to recall the effects of the rune priests runic staff and multiple staffs being within 24" and how those DIDN'T stack in stopping attacks versus the wording in the Rad Grenades.
Still not misinformation col.
When USED in this manner, as explained below.
In what manner?
The paragraph you didn't highlight... a grenade as a melee weapon.
Are we using a grenade in this manner? Yes or no?
If we do not use a grenade in that manner we don't need to have, as explained below, referenced. Being explained below is contingent upon, using it in this manner, which is a as a melee weapon.
Can rad grenades be used as a melee weapon? No.
Therefore they cannot be unusual grenades.
I do not have to prove it stacks, page 8 permits wargear to modify stats, without restriction. Only special rules cannot stack and special rules section notate this. We have permission on page 8 to use modifiers.
A model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once here's the thing it isn't if they are separate units
Inquisitor 1 and 2 are in the same unit they benefit from the rule once the rule doesn't stack in this situation because it's if the unit charged or is charged
Inquisitor 1 and 2 are separate units charging the same unit
Inquisitor 1 charges 1's grenade has the rule it applies once and gives unit b -1t
Then Inquisitor 2 charges 2's grenade has the rule it applies once and gives unit b-1t
Can rad grenades be used as a melee weapon? No.
Therefore they cannot be unusual grenades.
Again with the misinformation and inability to read plain text.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
By definition Unusual Grenades have no profiles and CANNOT be used as a Melee weapon (unless specifically stated otherwise).
So a rad grenade is most assuredly an Unusual Grenade. It does not have a profile, only has a special rule, and cannot be used as a shooting or Melee Weapon. Rad grenade fits the definition of Unusual Grenade to a tee.
I do not have to prove it stacks, page 8 permits wargear to modify stats, without restriction. Only special rules cannot stack and special rules section notate this. We have permission on page 8 to use modifiers.
You do indeed have to prove it stacks. The wording of the effect does not stack. So how are you stacking except by your assumption that the effect somehow magically stacks?
The exact wording of the rule is this: 'During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase'
The rule is asking you if the enemy unit has been charged by a unit equipped with rad grenades. It doesn't care how many times it has been charged. Only that 'during a turn' it has been charged. Thus the modifier only applies once. It would need specific wording that tells you to apply it multiple times.
I have been asking for pages, what basic rule is being broken.
A special rule breaks basic rules. Therefore in order to be a special rule you need to be breaking a rule.
Skyfire breaks snapshooting at flyers.
Melta breaks the normal dice roll for vehicles.
Fearless breaks morale rules.
Relentless breaks heavy weapon type rules.
Fleet break movement rules.
This is a defining characteristic of a special rule.
Tell me the basic rule that rad grenades are breaking, that is all I want. And it is not modifying stats as wargear is permitted too on page 8 under modifers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lmao. You go straight to unusual grenades and now you cut off the entire paragraph above it that tells you what an unusual grenade IS. You are highlighting what a unusual grenade DOES. It first has to be one in order to follow the rules for it. It says THESE grenades. Which grenades? The ones explained below, that are used to replace melee attacks. Please stop cutting out words and then telling me I can't read, this is hilarious col, please provide all the relevant rules above the box that tell you the criteria to consult the box.
Lmao. You go straight to unusual grenades and now you cut off the entire paragraph above it that tells you what an unusual grenade IS. You are highlighting what a unusual grenade DOES. It first has to be one in order to follow the rules for it. It says THESE grenades. Which grenades? The ones explained below, that are used to replace melee attacks. Please stop cutting out words and then telling me I can't ewad, this hilarious.
Again with your reading comprehension problems. This section has nothing to do with Unusual Grenades.
Spoiler:
VEHICLES, GUN EMPLACEMENTS AND MONSTROUS CREATURES
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements (pg 109) and/or Monstrous Creatures (including Flying Monstrous Creatures in Gliding mode), but have to be clamped in place to maximise effect. All buildings are attacked in close combat as if they were vehicles and therefore any grenade that can be used to attack a vehicle in close combat can also be used against a building.
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses. Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
At work so cannot reference the entry, but at what point are you even told to reference the grenade rules in BRB? Going off of memory right now, but frag and krak tell you to reference the BRB on their rules. Pretty sure melta and haywire do as well. But I can't find anything telling me that I need to reference the rules for grenades in the BRB therefore making the attempt to classify them as Unusual Grenades with Special Rules a moot point as you are never told to reference the Grenade rules when using them.
However, after reviewing the wording of the old runic staff for rune priests and multiple rune priests only getting one 4+ to nullify, that argument is gaining more support from me in terms of not allowing them to stack.
But to any of the non-stacking crowd using the Unusual Grenades argument, are you told to reference the grenade rules in the BRB to resolve Rad Grenades and if not, why are you choosing to do so?
Brother Ramses wrote: At work so cannot reference the entry, but at what point are you even told to reference the grenade rules in BRB? Going off of memory right now, but frag and krak tell you to reference the BRB on their rules. Pretty sure melta and haywire do as well. But I can't find anything telling me that I need to reference the rules for grenades in the BRB therefore making the attempt to classify them as Unusual Grenades with Special Rules a moot point as you are never told to reference the Grenade rules when using them.
However, after reviewing the wording of the old runic staff for rune priests and multiple rune priests only getting one 4+ to nullify, that argument is gaining more support from me in terms of not allowing them to stack.
But to any of the non-stacking crowd using the Unusual Grenades argument, are you told to reference the grenade rules in the BRB to resolve Rad Grenades and if not, why are you choosing to do so?
I am not familiar with the item you are referencing. IF they have a special rule on the weapon, magical staff runes, or whatever it's called then they would not stack. In some cases some special rules do stack but specifically notate that they stack. Rad grenades do not have a special rule in their entry.
Lmao. You go straight to unusual grenades and now you cut off the entire paragraph above it that tells you what an unusual grenade IS. You are highlighting what a unusual grenade DOES. It first has to be one in order to follow the rules for it. It says THESE grenades. Which grenades? The ones explained below, that are used to replace melee attacks. Please stop cutting out words and then telling me I can't ewad, this hilarious.
Again with your reading comprehension problems. This section has nothing to do with Unusual Grenades.
Spoiler:
VEHICLES, GUN EMPLACEMENTS AND MONSTROUS CREATURES
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements (pg 109) and/or Monstrous Creatures (including Flying Monstrous Creatures in Gliding mode), but have to be clamped in place to maximise effect. All buildings are attacked in close combat as if they were vehicles and therefore any grenade that can be used to attack a vehicle in close combat can also be used against a building.
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses. Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
This is the criteria to use an unusual grenade. It states you use a grenade as a melee weapon, which is what haywire and melta do. They have different profiles when used in this manner, the manner is as a melee weapon, AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
Directly below it is the unusual grenades box.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
If we are not using a grenade as a melee weapon, we are not using them in that manner, if we are not using them in that manner we do need to see what is explained below.
Choose another argument if you must but the unusual grenades holds no water.
Ceann wrote:I have been asking for pages, what basic rule is being broken.
A special rule breaks basic rules. Therefore in order to be a special rule you need to be breaking a rule.
Skyfire breaks snapshooting at flyers.
Melta breaks the normal dice roll for vehicles.
Fearless breaks morale rules.
Relentless breaks heavy weapon type rules.
Fleet break movement rules.
This is a defining characteristic of a special rule.
Tell me the basic rule that rad grenades are breaking, that is all I want. And it is not modifying stats as wargear is permitted too on page 8 under modifers.
No, page 8 is not establishing the rules for Wargear, just noting that it sometimes happens. It is using the occasion of some of them doing so to set the basic rules for Modifiers. It is an introduction, not a ruling for Wargear.
If it was a ruling for Wargear, the sub-section would be called "Wargear". In addition, just because something can do something doesn't mean it isn't breaking or bending rules to do so, especially to your enemy's units.
Not that you'll accept this, you are very stuck on this definition.
Ceann wrote:Lmao. You go straight to unusual grenades and now you cut off the entire paragraph above it that tells you what an unusual grenade IS. You are highlighting what a unusual grenade DOES. It first has to be one in order to follow the rules for it. It says THESE grenades. Which grenades? The ones explained below, that are used to replace melee attacks. Please stop cutting out words and then telling me I can't read, this is hilarious col, please provide all the relevant rules above the box that tell you the criteria to consult the box.
The criteria to consult the box is listed in the box. Since it is a break-out box it is not always being referred to by the previous paragraphs. If it was being referenced by the previous paragraphs it would state, "Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, [b]as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below." The previous paragraph does not state this, so it is not referring to anything in the Unusual Grenades break-out box. You are taking a literary leap by applying that sentence to the unreferenced break-out box.
Brother Ramses wrote:At work so cannot reference the entry, but at what point are you even told to reference the grenade rules in BRB? Going off of memory right now, but frag and krak tell you to reference the BRB on their rules. Pretty sure melta and haywire do as well. But I can't find anything telling me that I need to reference the rules for grenades in the BRB therefore making the attempt to classify them as Unusual Grenades with Special Rules a moot point as you are never told to reference the Grenade rules when using them.
...
But to any of the non-stacking crowd using the Unusual Grenades argument, are you told to reference the grenade rules in the BRB to resolve Rad Grenades and if not, why are you choosing to do so?
Actually Krak Grenades are part of the BRB, but Frag Grenades are told to reference Assault Grenades.
Here's a question for you, if you see an item called Grenades, where do you look in the rulebook to handle them? When you see a section called Grenades, would you not start there? If the Index points you to using the Grenades section, would you not start there?
So a better question would be, why would you not go to the Grenades section when a Wargear is called Grenades?
Here's a question for you, if you see an item called Grenades, where do you look in the rulebook to handle them? When you see a section called Grenades, would you not start there? If the Index points you to using the Grenades section, would you not start there?
So a better question would be, why would you not go to the Grenades section when a Wargear is called Grenades?
Why would you not treat assault cannons as assault weapons, or heavy flamers as heavy weapons.
Meltabombs doesn't have grenade in the name, yet is under the grenade section.
Gauss blaster doesn't use a blast template.
You can't use the just the name for application of rules, you have to look at the whole wargear entry.
For the same reason that I do not go to the BRB for a Thunderwolf mount section; you resolve it per the wargear entry.
But just so we are clear, you are assuming that you go to the BRB section on Grenades without any direction whatsoever in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades to do so?
"Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below."
Please then Charistoph, tell us what MANNER the above quote you provided is referencing? What manner are they being used in? Are we using them as a vehicle perhaps? I hope the manner is a transport it would be interesting to ride inside of a grenade. If as you stated the previous text has nothing to do with the statement, this is the situation we would be in, assuming or guessing the manner.
So....
Would the manner be... AS A MELEE WEAPON? I imagine so since the text you left out in a Col_ like fashion states what the manner is.
No, I see an item called "Rad Grenades"
Does it make a shooting attack? No.
Does it make a melee attack? No.
Does it tell me to consult the BRB? No.
As i mentioned 1000x already, it is just as much a grenade as an omnispex or terminator armor. "Rad Grenades" are not a weapon. You even said this yourself previously and I can quote it if you like.
If they are not a weapon how are you using the weapon rules of the BRB for an item that happens to have the word Grenades in the name?
I have repeatedly refuted this inane "unusual grenade" argument but everyone keeps coming back to it because they are for some strange reason unable to differentiate wargear from a weapon.
And as I have asked another 1000x...
TELL ME THE RULE, WHICH PAGE, is being BROKEN, by rad grenades.
As for the other nonsense about it not stacking.
A unit has 4 toughness.
I assault the unit.
The unit now has 3 toughness.
I assault the unit, the unit now has 2 toughness.
Each time you assault the unit the number goes down, it doesn't ask if the effect already happened, it doesn't say to not apply it if the unit already has a malus.
The only way this idea that it can't apply yet would be if it was a PENDING effect waiting to be applied and then another effect was also placed into this PENDING state and saw a copy of itself.
As there is no actual pending rule in the BRB and modifers are applied immediately as the requisite action is taken, there is no effect to moderate how many times the effect has been applied, the limit is actually placed on the fact that a given unit is only assaulting once.
Here's a question for you, if you see an item called Grenades, where do you look in the rulebook to handle them? When you see a section called Grenades, would you not start there? If the Index points you to using the Grenades section, would you not start there?
So a better question would be, why would you not go to the Grenades section when a Wargear is called Grenades?
Why would you not treat assault cannons as assault weapons, or heavy flamers as heavy weapons.
Meltabombs doesn't have grenade in the name, yet is under the grenade section.
Gauss blaster doesn't use a blast template.
You can't use the just the name for application of rules, you have to look at the whole wargear entry.
Brother Ramses wrote:For the same reason that I do not go to the BRB for a Thunderwolf mount section; you resolve it per the wargear entry.
But just so we are clear, you are assuming that you go to the BRB section on Grenades without any direction whatsoever in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades to do so?
There is no section for Assault Weapons or Heavy Weapons. There is a section for Grenades. The Wargear is called Grenades. Do the rules that cover that also apply here?
So, if Wargear is not Grenades (and it would state otherwise if it was, ala the Assault Cannon having the Heavy Type), then it would still be using a special rule to do its thing.
Ceann wrote:"Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below."
Please then Charistoph, tell us what MANNER the above quote you provided is referencing? What manner are they being used in? If as you stated the previous text has nothing to do with the statement.
Would the manner be... AS A MELEE WEAPON?
No I see an item called "Rad Grenades"
Does it make a shooting attack? No.
Does it make a melee attack? No.
As i mentioned 1000x already, it is just as much a grenade as an omnispex or terminator armor. "Rad Grenades" are not a weapon. You even said this yourself previously and I can quote it if you like.
If they are not a weapon how are you using the weapon rules of the BRB for an item that happens to have the word Grenades in the name?
I have repeatedly refuted this inane "unusual grenade" argument but everyone keeps coming back to it because they are for some strange reason unable to differentiate wargear from a weapon.
The above quote does not exist, though. The quote it replaces is referencing the rest of paragraphs following that starts with Assault Grenades. And when we get to Haywire and Krak Grenades we start seeing Profiles to be used in Melee under their "Assault" heading.
Rad Grenades do not have a profile, instead, as stated under Unusual Grenades, "Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon."
So, you cannot throw or use the Rad Grenades as a Melee Weapon.
Ceann wrote:And as I have asked another 1000x...
TELL ME THE RULE, WHICH PAGE, is being BROKEN, by rad grenades.
Modifying a Characteristic. Show me where all Wargear modify stats? You haven't answered that at any point it's been put back at you.
Why is this page 8 section defining Wargear and not defining Modifiers? Why is it setting the rules for Wargear instead of just noting that it is when it usually happens?
Ceann wrote:As for the other nonsense about it not stacking.
A unit has 4 toughness.
I assault the unit.
The unit now has 3 toughness.
I assault the unit, the unit now has 2 toughness.
Each time you assault the unit the number goes down, it doesn't ask if the effect already happened, it doesn't say to not apply it if the unit already has a malus.
The only way this idea that it can't apply yet would be if it was a PENDING effect waiting to be applied and then another effect was also placed into this PENDING state and saw a copy of itself.
As there is no actual pending rule in the BRB and modifers are applied immediately as the requisite action is taken, there is no effect to moderate how many times the effect has been applied, the limit is actually placed on the fact that a given unit is only assaulting once.
Because it is a Special Rule, it does not stack. Because it states it only happens in the Turn you Charge, you cannot Charge again and have it stack. Any concept of "pending" is your own creation.
Here's a question for you, if you see an item called Grenades, where do you look in the rulebook to handle them? When you see a section called Grenades, would you not start there? If the Index points you to using the Grenades section, would you not start there?
So a better question would be, why would you not go to the Grenades section when a Wargear is called Grenades?
Why would you not treat assault cannons as assault weapons, or heavy flamers as heavy weapons.
Meltabombs doesn't have grenade in the name, yet is under the grenade section.
Gauss blaster doesn't use a blast template.
You can't use the just the name for application of rules, you have to look at the whole wargear entry.
Brother Ramses wrote:For the same reason that I do not go to the BRB for a Thunderwolf mount section; you resolve it per the wargear entry.
But just so we are clear, you are assuming that you go to the BRB section on Grenades without any direction whatsoever in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades to do so?
There is no section for Assault Weapons or Heavy Weapons. There is a section for Grenades. The Wargear is called Grenades. Do the rules that cover that also apply here?
So, if Wargear is not Grenades (and it would state otherwise if it was, ala the Assault Cannon having the Heavy Type), then it would still be using a special rule to do its thing.
Ceann wrote:"Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below."
Please then Charistoph, tell us what MANNER the above quote you provided is referencing? What manner are they being used in? If as you stated the previous text has nothing to do with the statement.
Would the manner be... AS A MELEE WEAPON?
The above quote does not exist, though. The quote it replaces is referencing the rest of paragraphs following that starts with Assault Grenades. And when we get to Haywire and Krak Grenades we start seeing Profiles to be used in Melee under their "Assault" heading.
Are you serious sir? Are you going "you know who" also?
Page 180
"A model can use SUCH A GRENADE as a MELEE WEAPON."
SUCH = A grenade being used against a vehicle, MC or emplacement as notated in the section above titled Vehicles, Gun Enplacements and MC's located IN THE GRENADES SECTION of the rules.
MELEE WEAPON = A MELEE WEAPON, the things we used in CC.
"but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
"Different grenades have different takes when used in this manner, as explained below"
IN WHAT MANNER. AS A MELEE WEAPON, PAGE 180 in the GRENADE RULES.
What is explained below?
UNUSUAL GRENADES.
How do we know if we have an unusual grenade?
Because we are using it as a MELEE WEAPON, which is the manner described above where it told us it was explained below.
This is the criteria to use an unusual grenade. It states you use a grenade as a melee weapon, which is what haywire and melta do. They have different profiles when used in this manner, the manner is as a melee weapon, AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
Directly below it is the unusual grenades box.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
If we are not using a grenade as a melee weapon, we are not using them in that manner, if we are not using them in that manner we do need to see what is explained below.
Choose another argument if you must but the unusual grenades holds no water.
This section has absolutely nothing to do with Unusual Grenades. It is dealing with just grenades (ie the usual grenades with profiles)
Spoiler:
VEHICLES, GUN EMPLACEMENTS AND MONSTROUS CREATURES
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements (pg 109) and/or Monstrous Creatures (including Flying Monstrous Creatures in Gliding mode), but have to be clamped in place to maximise effect. All buildings are attacked in close combat as if they were vehicles and therefore any grenade that can be used to attack a vehicle in close combat can also be used against a building.
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses. Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
The text for Assault, Plasma, Defensive, Haywire, Krak, and Melta Bomb grenadse are what is 'explained below'. Unusual Grenades are discussed in an entirely separate breakout section, as an exception to what has been discussed prior. We know this because Unusual Grenades do not have profiles and so cannot be the referent for "different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below."
Here's a question for you, if you see an item called Grenades, where do you look in the rulebook to handle them? When you see a section called Grenades, would you not start there? If the Index points you to using the Grenades section, would you not start there?
So a better question would be, why would you not go to the Grenades section when a Wargear is called Grenades?
Why would you not treat assault cannons as assault weapons, or heavy flamers as heavy weapons.
Meltabombs doesn't have grenade in the name, yet is under the grenade section.
Gauss blaster doesn't use a blast template.
You can't use the just the name for application of rules, you have to look at the whole wargear entry.
Brother Ramses wrote:For the same reason that I do not go to the BRB for a Thunderwolf mount section; you resolve it per the wargear entry.
But just so we are clear, you are assuming that you go to the BRB section on Grenades without any direction whatsoever in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades to do so?
There is no section for Assault Weapons or Heavy Weapons. There is a section for Grenades. The Wargear is called Grenades. Do the rules that cover that also apply here?
So, if Wargear is not Grenades (and it would state otherwise if it was, ala the Assault Cannon having the Heavy Type), then it would still be using a special rule to do its thing.
Ceann wrote:"Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below."
Please then Charistoph, tell us what MANNER the above quote you provided is referencing? What manner are they being used in? If as you stated the previous text has nothing to do with the statement.
Would the manner be... AS A MELEE WEAPON?
No I see an item called "Rad Grenades"
Does it make a shooting attack? No.
Does it make a melee attack? No.
As i mentioned 1000x already, it is just as much a grenade as an omnispex or terminator armor. "Rad Grenades" are not a weapon. You even said this yourself previously and I can quote it if you like.
If they are not a weapon how are you using the weapon rules of the BRB for an item that happens to have the word Grenades in the name?
I have repeatedly refuted this inane "unusual grenade" argument but everyone keeps coming back to it because they are for some strange reason unable to differentiate wargear from a weapon.
The above quote does not exist, though. The quote it replaces is referencing the rest of paragraphs following that starts with Assault Grenades. And when we get to Haywire and Krak Grenades we start seeing Profiles to be used in Melee under their "Assault" heading.
Rad Grenades do not have a profile, instead, as stated under Unusual Grenades, "Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon."
So, you cannot throw or use the Rad Grenades as a Melee Weapon.
Ceann wrote:And as I have asked another 1000x...
TELL ME THE RULE, WHICH PAGE, is being BROKEN, by rad grenades.
Modifying a Characteristic. Show me where all Wargear modify stats? You haven't answered that at any point it's been put back at you.
Why is this page 8 section defining Wargear and not defining Modifiers? Why is it setting the rules for Wargear instead of just noting that it is when it usually happens?
Ceann wrote:As for the other nonsense about it not stacking.
A unit has 4 toughness.
I assault the unit.
The unit now has 3 toughness.
I assault the unit, the unit now has 2 toughness.
Each time you assault the unit the number goes down, it doesn't ask if the effect already happened, it doesn't say to not apply it if the unit already has a malus.
The only way this idea that it can't apply yet would be if it was a PENDING effect waiting to be applied and then another effect was also placed into this PENDING state and saw a copy of itself.
As there is no actual pending rule in the BRB and modifers are applied immediately as the requisite action is taken, there is no effect to moderate how many times the effect has been applied, the limit is actually placed on the fact that a given unit is only assaulting once.
Because it is a Special Rule, it does not stack. Because it states it only happens in the Turn you Charge, you cannot Charge again and have it stack. Any concept of "pending" is your own creation.
Nothing tells you to reference the rules for Grenades in the BRB in the Rad Grenades so therefore you do not. You are pigeon-holing it based on a naming convention aka fluff aka RAI with absolutely no RAW telling you to do so. As was pointed out, other Grenades are specific in telling you to reference the grenade rules in the BRB and said rules are written as such. However lacking no explicit direction to reference the grenade rules in the BRB, your stance that you do and in turn the subsequent stance on Unusual Grenades is pure RAI with no basis in RAW.
Nothing tells you to reference the rules for Grenades in the BRB in the Rad Grenades so therefore you do not. You are pigeon-holing it based on a naming convention aka fluff aka RAI with absolutely no RAW telling you to do so. As was pointed out, other Grenades are specific in telling you to reference the grenade rules in the BRB and said rules are written as such. However lacking no explicit direction to reference the grenade rules in the BRB, your stance that you do and in turn the subsequent stance on Unusual Grenades is pure RAI with no basis in RAW.
Except that grenade is an indexed keyword in the BRB, just like 'turn' or 'movement' or 'shooting sequence'. When the word 'grenade' is used in a codex, the BRB index automatically applies unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a rad grenade is not a grenade.
You know what Col, I was trying to help people understand special rules and basic rules but I need to remove you from this "unusual grenades" argument because you have already laser focused on the exact words in that box and will repeat them as an endless mantra until the end of time because you feel you are correct.
Are Grenades located in the special rules section of the BRB?
No. They are located in the weapons section.
Page 156 BRB under "A compendium of special rules"
We've presented them ALL in a single section to make your life easier to track down an effect of a particular special rule."
This tells us that ALL special rules located in the BRB, are notated in the BRB "Special Rules" section. Anything not located in the BRB section "Special Rules" is not a special rule.
Unusual grenades are not located in the special rules section they are located in the Weapons section.
The advanced rules tell us that a codex supersedes the rules of the BRB. Because Rad Grenades does not tell us to consult the BRB, Rad Grenades do not have to adhere to the weapon rules of the basic weapon rules in the weapons section. They are therefore not unusual grenades.
Page 13 BRB. "Basic versus advanced"
On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this book and, one printed in a codex. Where this occurs's the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry ALWAYS takes precedence.
Ceann wrote: You know what Col, I was trying to help people understand special rules and basic rules but I need to remove you from this "unusual grenades" argument because you have already laser focused on the exact words in that box and will repeat them as an endless mantra until the end of time because you feel you are correct.
Are Grenades located in the special rules section of the BRB?
No. They are located in the weapons section.
Page 156 BRB under "A compendium of special rules"
We've presented them ALL in a single section to make your life easier to track down an effect of a particular special rule."
This tells us that ALL special rules located in the BRB, are notated in the BRB "Special Rules" section. Anything not located in the BRB section "Special Rules" is not a special rule.
Unusual grenades are not located in the special rules section they are located in the Weapons section.
The advanced rules tell us that a codex supersedes the rules of the BRB. Because Rad Grenades does not tell us to consult the BRB Rad Grenades do not have to adhere to the weapon rules of the basic weapon rules in the weapons section. They are therefore not unusual grenades.
Page 13 BRB. "Basic versus advanced"
On rare occasions. a conflict will arise between a rule in this book and, one printed in a codex. Where this occurs's the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry ALWAYS takes precedence.
Are we done with unusual grenades now?
Grenade is an indexed keyword in the BRB, just like 'turn' or 'movement' or 'shooting sequence' or 'weapon'. When the word 'grenade' is used in a codex, the BRB index automatically applies unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a rad grenade is not a grenade.
When a codex says 'Weapon' does that carry the indexed term 'Weapon' or not? Same thing with 'Grenade'. The word is an indexed word and so carries the BRB definition unless specifically stated otherwise.
Otherwise you are in the awkward position that weapons in the Codex are not functional weapons in the game.
This is incorrect. A codex will have a section at the front of the armory listing the weapons not in the codex and referencing you to the 40kBRB for the rules for those weapons.
It has the same section for each type of wargear present in the codex that is directly from the BRB and references directly back to the BRB. If a reference does not exist then it does not reference the BRB.
The special rules laws, in particular on page 13 supersede the weapons section "unusual grenades".
"""""When the word 'grenade' is used in a codex, the BRB index automatically applies unless proven otherwise. """"
You claimed the above statement, please tell us what page this rule resides on.
I am not in an awkward position.
Are Grenades located in the special rules section of the BRB?
No. They are located in the weapons section.
Page 156 BRB under "A compendium of special rules"
We've presented them ALL in a single section to make your life easier to track down an effect of a particular special rule."
This tells us that ALL special rules located in the BRB, are notated in the BRB "Special Rules" section. Anything not located in the BRB section "Special Rules" is not a special rule.
Unusual grenades are not located in the special rules section they are located in the Weapons section.
The advanced rules tell us that a codex supersedes the rules of the BRB. Because Rad Grenades does not tell us to consult the BRB Rad Grenades do not have to adhere to the weapon rules of the basic weapon rules in the weapons section. They are therefore not unusual grenades.
Page 13 BRB. "Basic versus advanced"
On rare occasions. a conflict will arise between a rule in this book and, one printed in a codex. Where this occurs's the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry ALWAYS takes precedence.
Are we done with unusual grenades now?
Please provide the exact page number that states this or the comment means nothing.
Nothing tells you to reference the rules for Grenades in the BRB in the Rad Grenades so therefore you do not. You are pigeon-holing it based on a naming convention aka fluff aka RAI with absolutely no RAW telling you to do so. As was pointed out, other Grenades are specific in telling you to reference the grenade rules in the BRB and said rules are written as such. However lacking no explicit direction to reference the grenade rules in the BRB, your stance that you do and in turn the subsequent stance on Unusual Grenades is pure RAI with no basis in RAW.
Except that grenade is an indexed keyword in the BRB, just like 'turn' or 'movement' or 'shooting sequence'. When the word 'grenade' is used in a codex, the BRB index automatically applies unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a rad grenade is not a grenade.
The Shunt made by GK uses movement and moving in it's description which I am sure that movement and move are indexed in the BRB. However, it was ruled as a Shunt, not movement per the BRB definition of movement. Even though the model physically moved, it was not moving, it was shunting.
As far as burden of proof, I need to only point to the wargear entry that does not tell me to reference the BRB section on Grenades. I can resolve the Rad Grenades per wargear entry as it is written, aka RAW. You make the assumption that because "grenade" is part of the name, that it must then follow the rules in the BRB for grenade, despite have absolutely zero direction to do so aka RAI.
Abandon this stance, the semantics of the wording is much stronger in denying stacking rad grenades. This path is just bashing your face into the RAW.
Ceann wrote: This is incorrect. A codex will have a section at the front of the armory listing the weapons not in the codex and referencing you to the 40kBRB for the rules for those weapons.
The special rules laws, in particular on page 13 supersede the weapons section "unusual grenades".
"When the word 'grenade' is used in a codex, the BRB index automatically applies unless proven otherwise. "
I am not in an awkward position.
Are Grenades located in the special rules section of the BRB?
No. They are located in the weapons section.
Page 156 BRB under "A compendium of special rules"
We've presented them ALL in a single section to make your life easier to track down an effect of a particular special rule."
This tells us that ALL special rules located in the BRB, are notated in the BRB "Special Rules" section. Anything not located in the BRB section "Special Rules" is not a special rule.
Unusual grenades are not located in the special rules section they are located in the Weapons section.
The advanced rules tell us that a codex supersedes the rules of the BRB. Because Rad Grenades does not tell us to consult the BRB Rad Grenades do not have to adhere to the weapon rules of the basic weapon rules in the weapons section. They are therefore not unusual grenades.
Page 13 BRB. "Basic versus advanced"
On rare occasions. a conflict will arise between a rule in this book and, one printed in a codex. Where this occurs's the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry ALWAYS takes precedence.
Are we done with unusual grenades now?
Please provide the exact page number that states this or the comment means nothing.
Does the Imperial Agent codex explicitly refer you to use the BRB definition of 'weapons'? If not, then how are you using the 'weapons' in the codex as functioning 40k 'weapons'? If you want to, feel free to treat all weapons in the Imperial Agent codex as a weapon only by fluff and not by 40k defintion.
The BRB designates 'weapon', 'turn', and 'grenade' as indexed keywords. The definitions apply when the word is used unless specifically stated or proven otherwise.
The Shunt made by GK uses movement and moving in it's description which I am sure that movement and move are indexed in the BRB. However, it was ruled as a Shunt, not movement per the BRB definition of movement. Even though the model physically moved, it was not moving, it was shunting.
As far as burden of proof, I need to only point to the wargear entry that does not tell me to reference the BRB section on Grenades. I can resolve the Rad Grenades per wargear entry as it is written, aka RAW. You make the assumption that because "grenade" is part of the name, that it must then follow the rules in the BRB for grenade, despite have absolutely zero direction to do so aka RAI.
Abandon this stance, the semantics of the wording is much stronger in denying stacking rad grenades. This path is just bashing your face into the RAW.
Grenade is an indexed key word. So long as the codex is 40k, the BRB indexed definitions apply. You have to prove that they do not apply.
Otherwise you are saying that anytime an indexed word is used in a codex that it has to explicitly refer to the BRB. That is a huge can of worms to open. All codices would be rendered instantly useless since indexed keywords are used throughout a codex with only the rarest exception including an explicit reference.
You are completely ignoring the RAW, period. The wargear entry for rad grenades resolves itself completely and never tells you to reference the BRB grenade section to resolve them. You have zero RAW standing in this and are now completely inventing "proof" that does not exist. .
Brother Ramses wrote: You are completely ignoring the RAW, period. The wargear entry for rad grenades resolves itself completely and never tells you to reference the BRB grenade section to resolve them. You have zero RAW standing in this and are now completely inventing "proof" that does not exist. .
Page 13 BRB. "Basic versus advanced"
On rare occasions. a conflict will arise between a rule in this book and, one printed in a codex. Where this occurs's the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry ALWAYS takes precedence.
That is called the codex "I win" button.
The wargear rules for the Codex: Imperial Agents take precedence for rad grenades.
Any words you have from the BRB mean nothing.
Page 13 BRB. "Basic versus advanced"
On rare occasions. a conflict will arise between a rule in this book and, one printed in a codex. Where this occurs's the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry ALWAYS takes precedence.
Brother Ramses wrote: You are completely ignoring the RAW, period. The wargear entry for rad grenades resolves itself completely and never tells you to reference the BRB grenade section to resolve them. You have zero RAW standing in this and are now completely inventing "proof" that does not exist. .
Are grenades in the BRB index or not?
Yup.
Does the wargear entry for Rad Grenades tell you reference that section? Nope. That is pure RAW of the wargear entry with no assumption of the naming convention somehow directing me to said section.
Brother Ramses wrote: You are completely ignoring the RAW, period. The wargear entry for rad grenades resolves itself completely and never tells you to reference the BRB grenade section to resolve them. You have zero RAW standing in this and are now completely inventing "proof" that does not exist. .
Are grenades in the BRB index or not?
Yup.
Does the wargear entry for Rad Grenades tell you reference that section? Nope. That is pure RAW of the wargear entry with no assumption of the naming convention somehow directing me to said section.
Does Imperial Agents mention 'weapons' or 'shooting' or 'phase' or 'turn'? Where do we get the definitions for those terms?
You see the Basic vs Advanced also tell us to use the rules of the DATA SHEET for the units and tells us those basic rules you mention apply to all units the game, and the data sheets for the units list the unit types, which define ALL the basic rules for those units. Wonderful wonderful day Col.
Do you have anything else or can we talk about the rad grenades themselves now instead of all these silly side arguments?
Ceann wrote: Oh this is wonderful Col, just wonderful.
You see the Basic vs Advanced also tell us to use the rules of the DATA SHEET for the units, and the data sheets for the units list the unit types, which define ALL the basic rules for those units. Wonderful wonderful day Col.
Do you have anything else or can we talk about the rad grenades themselves now instead of all these silly side arguments?
That includes the definition for grenades which applies whenever the term is used. Are we done here?
You need to prove that Rad Grenades are not Grenades.
Ceann wrote: That includes the definition for grenades which applies whenever the term is used. Are we done here?
Are these words in the Special Rules section of the brb?
No?
Codex wins. Please submit more words.
Grenades is an indexed keyword in the BRB. The index applies unless you can prove otherwise. Similarly, the BRB definition of 'weapon' is in play when you read about a codex 'weapon'. Otherwise, codex 'weapons' will not function as 40k 'weapons'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Ramses wrote: Amazing that in the very face of pure RAW, col-impact will still attempt to apply a RAI assumption and fully commit said false premise to being RAW.
Grenades is an indexed keyword with a 40k recognized definition so it is RAW to apply it to an occurrence of the term in a Codex.
Brother Ramses wrote: Let me guess col_impact, in the Wolves codex, you refer to the BRB for frost claws on how to use them since "claws" is in the BRB?
Ceann wrote: That includes the definition for grenades which applies whenever the term is used. Are we done here?
Are these words in the Special Rules section of the brb?
No?
Codex wins. Please submit more words.
Grenades is an indexed keyword in the BRB. The index applies unless you can prove otherwise. Similarly, the BRB definition of 'weapon' is in play when you read about a codex 'weapon'. Otherwise, codex 'weapons' will not function as 40k 'weapons'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Ramses wrote: Amazing that in the very face of pure RAW, col-impact will still attempt to apply a RAI assumption and fully commit said false premise to being RAW.
Grenades is an indexed keyword with a 40k recognized definition so it is RAW to apply it to an occurrence of the term in a Codex.
Look everyone, it is the same col_impact tactic from the RG relic and terminator/bike thread! Repeat his LIE enough times for him to believe it. And I am saying LIE because you have zero standing at all to make the premise that you have and the RAW is clear cut as can possibly be. You are propagating a lie and are going to repeat it over and over on the premise that it is true without a single written rule to backup your stance.
EMPYREAN BRAIN MINES
Empyrean brain mines are used at the start of the Fight sub-phase. Nominate one enemy model in base contact with the bearer. That model must pass an Initiative test to avoid the brain mine. If the test is passed, the effects of the brain mine have been resisted. If the test is failed, the victim has been rendered momentarily catatonic and cannot strike any blows during this sub-phase.
So here we are in the codex.
What's the 'Fight sub-phase'?
What's a 'model'.
What's an 'Initiative test'?
There aren't any page references to the BRB so according to Ceann and Brother Ramses those are meaningless words with no impact on anything. Looks like Empyrean Brain Mines do absolutely nothing.
Look everyone, it is the same col_impact tactic from the RG relic and terminator/bike thread! Repeat his LIE enough times for him to believe it. And I am saying LIE because you have zero standing at all to make the premise that you have and the RAW is clear cut as can possibly be. You are propagating a lie and are going to repeat it over and over on the premise that it is true without a single written rule to backup your stance.
What lie? That 'grenades' is an indexed keyword? Are you able to open up your BRB and read it? You can confirm that 'grenades' is an indexed keyword all by yourself.
I am not going to entertain Col on his face first plunge into never admitting he is wrong.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades
launches an assault, or is assaulted the enemy unit(s)
suffer a -1 penalty to their toughness until the end of phase"
The question here seems to be whether or not the "penalty" is somehow lingering to verify if it has already been applied or not or if it is applied immediately.
col_impact wrote: EMPYREAN BRAIN MINES
Empyrean brain mines are used at the start of the Fight sub-phase. Nominate one enemy model in base contact with the bearer. That model must pass an Initiative test to avoid the brain mine. If the test is passed, the effects of the brain mine have been resisted. If the test is failed, the victim has been rendered momentarily catatonic and cannot strike any blows during this sub-phase.
So here we are in the codex.
What's the 'Fight sub-phase'?
What's a 'model'.
What's an 'Initiative test'?
There aren't any page references to the BRB so according to Ceann and Brother Ramses those are meaningless words with no impact on anything. Looks like Empyrean Brain Mines do absolutely nothing.
Look everyone, it is the same col_impact tactic from the RG relic and terminator/bike thread! Repeat his LIE enough times for him to believe it. And I am saying LIE because you have zero standing at all to make the premise that you have and the RAW is clear cut as can possibly be. You are propagating a lie and are going to repeat it over and over on the premise that it is true without a single written rule to backup your stance.
What lie? That 'grenades' is an indexed keyword? Are you able to open up your BRB and read it? You can confirm that 'grenades' is an indexed keyword all by yourself.
Are you told to reference the rules for grenades in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades or are you assuming that you reference the rules for Rad Grenades because "grenades" is in the name? If you are choosing the latter, cite your rules reference that tells you to use a naming convention and index to refer to the grenades section of the BRB. Remember, you need explicit permission, not assumption to reference the rules for grenades in the BRB. Until you can do that, your premise is based on a lie that you have created on a whim to support your argument.
Dear dear col.
Is the codex providing a conflict for those? I don't see any of those words in the codex, you are right sir.
Good thing there is no conflict. Per the rules of the BRB we will follow the basic rules of the BRB because their is no conflict with those words where the codex takes precedence.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades
launches an assault, or is assaulted the enemy unit(s)
suffer a -1 penalty to their toughness until the end of phase"
In that quote . . .
turn, grenades, assault, enemy, unit(s), toughness, and phase are all 40k defined terms.
If you are using the 40k definition for 'turn' then you need to also use the 40k definition for 'grenade'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Dear dear col.
Is the codex providing a conflict for those? I don't see any of those words in the codex, you are right sir.
Good thing there is no conflict. Per the rules of the BRB we will follow the basic rules of the BRB because their is no conflict with those words where the codex takes precedence.
Page 13 BRB. Basic vs advanced.
Same thing for grenade. There is no conflict so the BRB definition of grenade applies.
col_impact wrote: EMPYREAN BRAIN MINES
Empyrean brain mines are used at the start of the Fight sub-phase. Nominate one enemy model in base contact with the bearer. That model must pass an Initiative test to avoid the brain mine. If the test is passed, the effects of the brain mine have been resisted. If the test is failed, the victim has been rendered momentarily catatonic and cannot strike any blows during this sub-phase.
So here we are in the codex.
What's the 'Fight sub-phase'?
What's a 'model'.
What's an 'Initiative test'?
There aren't any page references to the BRB so according to Ceann and Brother Ramses those are meaningless words with no impact on anything. Looks like Empyrean Brain Mines do absolutely nothing.
Look everyone, it is the same col_impact tactic from the RG relic and terminator/bike thread! Repeat his LIE enough times for him to believe it. And I am saying LIE because you have zero standing at all to make the premise that you have and the RAW is clear cut as can possibly be. You are propagating a lie and are going to repeat it over and over on the premise that it is true without a single written rule to backup your stance.
What lie? That 'grenades' is an indexed keyword? Are you able to open up your BRB and read it? You can confirm that 'grenades' is an indexed keyword all by yourself.
Are you told to reference the rules for grenades in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades or are you assuming that you reference the rules for Rad Grenades because "grenades" is in the name? If you are choosing the latter, cite your rules reference that tells you to use a naming convention and index to refer to the grenades section of the BRB. Remember, you need explicit permission, not assumption to reference the rules for grenades in the BRB. Until you can do that, your premise is based on a lie that you have created on a whim to support your argument.
Friend Brother Ramses!
Never fear! The rad grenades are located in the special wargear section of the IA codex. This means that rad grenades are not a weapon, as they are not a weapon they have no need to reference any weapon rules. Just like any other special wargear, like an omnispex. In order for Mr Denier to even being to have a fractal theory sized argument he would have to demonstrate that they are a weapon, but they are not they are a special wargear.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So a heavy flamer is a heavy weapon right Col?
Because we see the word heavy?
No.
Items are CLASSIFIED under the section they sit in, a grenade is in the weapons section, being a weapon and follow the rules for weapons.
Weapons are listed in the weapons section and follow the rules for weapon profiles.
We do not have a weapon we have a special wargear.
col_impact wrote: EMPYREAN BRAIN MINES
Empyrean brain mines are used at the start of the Fight sub-phase. Nominate one enemy model in base contact with the bearer. That model must pass an Initiative test to avoid the brain mine. If the test is passed, the effects of the brain mine have been resisted. If the test is failed, the victim has been rendered momentarily catatonic and cannot strike any blows during this sub-phase.
So here we are in the codex.
What's the 'Fight sub-phase'?
What's a 'model'.
What's an 'Initiative test'?
There aren't any page references to the BRB so according to Ceann and Brother Ramses those are meaningless words with no impact on anything. Looks like Empyrean Brain Mines do absolutely nothing.
Look everyone, it is the same col_impact tactic from the RG relic and terminator/bike thread! Repeat his LIE enough times for him to believe it. And I am saying LIE because you have zero standing at all to make the premise that you have and the RAW is clear cut as can possibly be. You are propagating a lie and are going to repeat it over and over on the premise that it is true without a single written rule to backup your stance.
What lie? That 'grenades' is an indexed keyword? Are you able to open up your BRB and read it? You can confirm that 'grenades' is an indexed keyword all by yourself.
Are you told to reference the rules for grenades in the wargear entry for Rad Grenades or are you assuming that you reference the rules for Rad Grenades because "grenades" is in the name? If you are choosing the latter, cite your rules reference that tells you to use a naming convention and index to refer to the grenades section of the BRB. Remember, you need explicit permission, not assumption to reference the rules for grenades in the BRB. Until you can do that, your premise is based on a lie that you have created on a whim to support your argument.
They are referred to as Rad grenades with grenades in the lower case. Therefore grenades is not part of the name. Therefore the 40k definition of grenades applies.
Grenades are defined as a WEAPON in the weapons section.
Rad Grenades are not a weapon, they are a special wargear.
Do you see a section in the BRB for special wargear?
No?
None at all?
Then I guess we follow the rules in the codex.
Codex wins again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ramses you think we can discuss rad grenades now before he cooks up something new?
Frag grenades are special issue wargear in C:SM. Are you saying that Frag grenades are not grenades or weapons?
Spoiler:
SPECIAL ISSUE WARGEAR
FRAG GRENADES
Shooting
When a unit armed with assault grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models equipped with assault grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal Initiative in the ensuing combat.
I have proven that Special Issue Wargear can include weapons and can include grenades.
And since 'Rad grenades' uses 'grenades' in lower case we know that 'grenades' is not part of the name. So the 40k definition of 'grenades' applies.
And the relationship of the Codex:SM to the BRB has nothing to with the relationship of Codex:IA to the BRB.
Rad Grenades are never declared as a weapon, they are a special issue wargear.
Codex supersedes the BRB.
You ask how Frag Grenades work, well the data sheet for the units is what you are told in the BRB to look at in the Codex.
Is there a conflict with Frag Grenades in the Codex:SM? No?
Maybe you should stop going off topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is there a self help section?
Every time you start posting you have all of these questions about how the rules work and need to have them explained to you. I think you should read the rules and come back when you ready.
Ceann wrote: And the relationship of the Codex:SM to the BRB has nothing to with the relationship of Codex:IA to the BRB.
Rad Grenades are never declared as a weapon, they are a special issue wargear.
Codex supersedes the BRB.
You ask how Frag Grenades work, well the data sheet for the units is what you are told in the BRB to look at in the Codex.
Is there a conflict with Frag Grenades in the Codex:SM? No?
Maybe you should stop going off topic.
It's 'rad grenade' not 'Rad Grenade'. 'Grenade' is not part of some named proper noun. Therefore you must use the rules for 40k defined term 'grenade'. In the Grenade section you will find that Unusual Grenades fits what a rad grenade is.
rad grenades are grenades. More specifically they are Unusual Grenades since they lack a profile and fit the specific definition of Unusual Grenade.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
rad grenades have a special rule
Spoiler:
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
the wording of that special rule is not cumulative
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
I am looking at page 180 of the BRB.
Grenades of the Imperium
I see Assault Grenades
Plasma Grenades
Defensive Grenades
Haywire Grenades
Krak Grenades
Melta bombs.
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
I am looking at page 180 of the BRB.
Grenades of the Imperium
I see Assault Grenades
Plasma Grenades
Defensive Grenades
Haywire Grenades
Krak Grenades
Melta bombs.
What is a rad grenade col? They don't exist.
Not all grenades in 40k are listed in the BRB. A rad grenade is a grenade. It's an Unusual Grenade. It has a special rule ("During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).") The wording of the special rule is not cumulative.
Ceann wrote: Where did you find the rules for a rad grenades col?
The special rule for the Unusual Grenade called a rad grenade is in the Imperial Agent codex. The rules for grenade and Unusual Grenade is in the BRB. The rules for 'grenade' apply when dealing with rad grenades since the 'grenade' in 'rad grenade' is not capitalized to be a proper noun.
Unusual Grenade is not a special rule.
Nice of you to try to sneak that in.
Unusual Grenade is a rule in the weapons section of the BRB.
The BRB Special rules section states they have put ALL the special rules in the BRB in the Special Rules section.
Unusual Grenades is not in the Special Rules section.
Basic vs Advanced tells us that we use the rules of a codex if there is a conflict.
The conflict is that per the BRB no wargear called rad grenades exist.
Unusual Grenade is not a special rule.
Nice of you to try to sneak that in.
Unusual Grenade is a rule in the weapons section of the BRB.
The BRB Special rules section states they have put ALL the special rules in the BRB in the Special Rules section.
Unusual Grenades is not in the Special Rules section.
Never said it was. Unusual Grenades have special rules by definition.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
This is the rad grenade special rule that defines the effect of the rad grenade.
Spoiler:
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
You have no argument, Ceann.
rad grenade is in lower case, not in upper case. It's not a proper noun. You are required to use the 40k definition for 'grenade'.
Unusual Grenades is not a special rule.
Rad Grenades are not listed in the BRB as grenades.
Rad Grenades do not exist in the BRB.
This is a conflict.
Because there is a conflict we use the rules of the codex.
Not some of the rules of the codex, all of the rules of the codex.
Are Rad grenades listed as a weapon in the Codex: IA ?
No.
Do we consult the BRB?
No.
:::is in lower case, not in upper case. It's not a proper noun. You are required to use the 40k definition for 'grenade'. :::
That? That is not a rule. Please quote the page that states that rule.
Ceann wrote: Unusual Grenades is not a special rule.
Rad Grenades are not listed in the BRB as grenades.
Rad Grenades do not exist in the BRB.
This is a conflict.
It's 'rad grenade' not 'Rad Grenade'.
There is no conflict.
'grenade' is an indexed term in 40k and 'grenade' is not in the Imperial Agent index. As per any indexed term, (e.g. 'Instant Death') you go to the index referenced section in the BRB.
Go to the Grenades section and find the rule for Unusual Grenades which applies.
In order to decipher the text for 'rad grenade' I must make several trips to the BRB via the index (e.g. Instant Death, Toughness, assault, turn, and grenade)
"""'grenade' is an indexed term in 40k and 'grenade' is not in the Imperial Agent index. As per any indexed term, (e.g. 'Instant Death') you go to the index referenced section in the BRB. """"
"""'grenade' is an indexed term in 40k and 'grenade' is not in the Imperial Agent index. As per any indexed term, (e.g. 'Instant Death') you go to the index referenced section in the BRB. """"
Go ahead and decipher 'Instant Death', 'turn', and 'assault' without using the BRB. See what you come up with!
The rules for Army List Entry allow you to look around for rules from multiple sources, from the codex to the BRB. In the case of 'grenade' there is no Codex defined term but rather a BRB defined term so you use that.
once again col_impact is just creating fake rules without providing a source when the RAW is clear cut.
The wargear entry does not direct him to reference the BRB rules for grenades, yet he chooses to do so insisting that an un-cited naming convention based upon the BRB index exists for him to do so. He blatantly ignores the RAW of the wargear entry, out of thin air he creates a rule (naming convention/BRB index to dictate rules) with zero RAW citation, and then repeats it over and over as RAW. The last part is the most egregious as he is willingly repeating a lie of his creation to substantiate a premise that he knows is not founded on RAW.
Actually all of the rules for rad grenades are located in the Appendix of the Codex: IA under special wargear.
Nothing requires me to consult the BRB.
You cannot quote this "index" rule because it doesn't exist.
Another fabrication, one of the many you start making when you lose arguments.
Page 13 BRB -
conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
The conflict is that if I read the BRB page to page there is no entry for Rad grenades, I MUST consult the codex.
Per your own words when I asked you, the rad grenades are located in the Codex: IA.
The appendix states the rule for rad grenades. It does not state a reference to the BRB, therefore it has none.
This index nonsense is word magic you are attempting to use in order to "win" you don't care about actual representation of the rules. You just want to "win".
Since when has the NAME of gear determined anything?
Brother Ramses wrote: once again col_impact is just creating fake rules without providing a source when the RAW is clear cut.
The wargear entry does not direct him to reference the BRB rules for grenades, yet he chooses to do so insisting that an un-cited naming convention based upon the BRB index exists for him to do so. He blatantly ignores the RAW of the wargear entry, out of thin air he creates a rule (naming convention/BRB index to dictate rules) with zero RAW citation, and then repeats it over and over as RAW. The last part is the most egregious as he is willingly repeating a lie of his creation to substantiate a premise that he knows is not founded on RAW.
'grenade' is a 40k defined term.
'grenade' is not defined in the Imperial Agent codex.
I am allowed to find definitions for terms in the BRB. If I am not allowed, then I can not decipher any codex. Moreover, the rule for Army List Entry allows me to find the BRB definition for 'grenade'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Actually all of the rules for rad grenades are located in the Appendix of the Codex: IA under special wargear.
Nothing requires me to consult the BRB.
You cannot quote this "index" rule because it doesn't exist.
Another fabrication, one of the many you start making when you lose arguments.
Page 13 BRB -
conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
Per your own words when I asked you, the rad grenades are located in the Codex: IA.
The appendix states the rule for rad grenades. It does not state a reference to the BRB, therefore it has none.
This index nonsense is word magic you are attempting to use in order to "win" you don't care about actual representation of the rules. You just want to "win".
'grenade' is not defined in the Imperial Agent codex. It is defined in the BRB.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Actually all of the rules for rad grenades are located in the Appendix of the Codex: IA under special wargear.
Nothing requires me to consult the BRB.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold)."
Ok. Then what is 'turn', 'assault', 'Toughness', and 'Instant Death' without using the BRB.
"grenade" is also not a special rule, it takes no precedence over the codex.
When did the name of a wargear become a rule?
Please show me the page.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok. Then what is 'turn', 'assault', 'Toughness', and 'Instant Death' without using the BRB.
Are terms that are not currently defined in the codex. Because they are not defined in the codex and listed as the RULES for a piece of wargear, we are permitted by the rules for Army List Entry's to consult the BRB to define those rules.
We do not need to consult the BRB to determine grenade, nothing is requiring we do so.
Ceann wrote: "grenade" is also not a special rule, it takes no precedence over the codex.
When did the name of a wargear become a rule?
Please show me the page.
'grenade' is not a proper noun. The Imperial Agent codex provides no definition for 'grenade'. The BRB does. I am completely permitted to access the BRB definition.
Brother Ramses wrote: once again col_impact is just creating fake rules without providing a source when the RAW is clear cut.
The wargear entry does not direct him to reference the BRB rules for grenades, yet he chooses to do so insisting that an un-cited naming convention based upon the BRB index exists for him to do so. He blatantly ignores the RAW of the wargear entry, out of thin air he creates a rule (naming convention/BRB index to dictate rules) with zero RAW citation, and then repeats it over and over as RAW. The last part is the most egregious as he is willingly repeating a lie of his creation to substantiate a premise that he knows is not founded on RAW.
'grenade' is a 40k defined term.
'grenade' is not defined in the Imperial Agent codex.
I am allowed to find definitions for terms in the BRB. If I am not allowed, then I can not decipher any codex. Moreover, the rule for Army List Entry allows me to find the BRB definition for 'grenade'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Actually all of the rules for rad grenades are located in the Appendix of the Codex: IA under special wargear.
Nothing requires me to consult the BRB.
You cannot quote this "index" rule because it doesn't exist.
Another fabrication, one of the many you start making when you lose arguments.
Page 13 BRB -
conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
Per your own words when I asked you, the rad grenades are located in the Codex: IA.
The appendix states the rule for rad grenades. It does not state a reference to the BRB, therefore it has none.
This index nonsense is word magic you are attempting to use in order to "win" you don't care about actual representation of the rules. You just want to "win".
'grenade' is not defined in the Imperial Agent codex. It is defined in the BRB.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Actually all of the rules for rad grenades are located in the Appendix of the Codex: IA under special wargear.
Nothing requires me to consult the BRB.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold)."
Ok. Then what is 'turn', 'assault', 'Toughness', and 'Instant Death' without using the BRB.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
Ceann wrote: "grenade" is also not a special rule, it takes no precedence over the codex.
When did the name of a wargear become a rule?
Please show me the page.
'grenade' is not a proper noun. The Imperial Agent codex provides no definition for 'grenade'. The BRB does. I am completely permitted to access the BRB definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
col_impact wrote:
Ok. Then what is 'turn', 'assault', 'Toughness', and 'Instant Death' without using the BRB.
Are terms that are not currently defined in the codex. Because they are not defined in the codex and listed as the RULES for a piece of wargear, we are permitted by the rules for Army List Entry's to consult the BRB to define those rules.
We do not need to consult the BRB to determine grenade, nothing is requiring we do so.
You do need to consult the BRB to determine grenade. Nothing is requiring you to consult for 'assault' but in order to decipher what the rules mean about 'assault' or 'grenade' you must consult the BRB.
Ceann wrote: Can you help me find the rules section for "nouns"?
What page is that on?
Are you admitting you cannot read at a grade school level here (nouns, verbs, adjectives, sentences, punctuation)? If you cannot read rules at a grade school level then you cannot participate in this discussion
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
You have gone from arguing, to word games, to personal insults.
You are losing this pretty badly huh?
Well the DATASHEET rules tell you what a units name is.
Then they tell you another section of the datasheet tells you the WARGEAR you are using. Not the grenade you are using. The WARGEAR you are using.
'grenade' is not a name? GW can name their things anything they want, in any manner they want. The datasheet shows us those names. The SECTIONS of the rules that those names are located tell us the rules for those things, the name does not.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states wargear names are rules.
'grenade' is not a name. It's a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
My argument is all perfectly according to the Rules As Written.
'grenade' is not a proper noun and so is not a name. It's defined in the BRB. The Army List Entry rule allows us to access the BRB definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Well the DATASHEET rules tell you what a units name is.
Then they tell you another section of the datasheet tells you the WARGEAR you are using. Not the grenade you are using. The WARGEAR you are using.
'grenade' is not a name? GW can name their things anything they want, in any manner they want. The datasheet shows us those names. The SECTIONS of the rules that those names are located tell us the rules for those things, the name does not.
'grenade' is not a name. It's a defined term in the BRB.
Well in the Special Wargear Section of the Codex:IA
It says "RAD GRENADES"
If I want to purchase this wargear I may.
The DATASHEET of an Xeno's Inqusitor who can purchase this wargear "RAD GRENADES" tells me what pages of the Codex:IA to consult for this wargear.
Sadly the BRB has no rule for index.
Show me the page that state wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states index is a special rule.
Ceann wrote: Well in the Special Wargear Section of the Codex:IA
It says "RAD GRENADES"
If I want to purchase this wargear I may.
The DATASHEET of an Xeno's Inqusitor who can purchase this wargear "RAD GRENADES" tells me what pages of the Codex:IA to consult for this wargear.
Sadly the BRB has no rule for index.
Show me the page that state wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states index is a special rule.
The rule for rad grenade uses 'grenade'
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold)."
'grenade' is not capitalized so it is not part of the wargear name. In order to decipher what 'grenade' means in the game we are required to find the definition for 'grenade' in the BRB.
There is no rule for 'grenade' in the Imperial Agent codex so we are required to look for the definition in the BRB.
Ceann wrote: Well in the Special Wargear Section of the Codex:IA
It says "RAD GRENADES"
If I want to purchase this wargear I may.
The DATASHEET of an Xeno's Inqusitor who can purchase this wargear "RAD GRENADES" tells me what pages of the Codex:IA to consult for this wargear.
Sadly the BRB has no rule for index.
Show me the page that state wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states index is a special rule.
The rule for rad grenade uses 'grenade'
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold)."
'grenade' is not capitalized so it is not part of the wargear name. In order to decipher what 'grenade' means in the game we are required to find the definition for 'grenade' in the BRB.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
Ceann wrote: Show me the page that state wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states index is a special rule.
Why are you talking about "wargear names"?
Spoiler:
8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.
'grenade' is not capitalized so it is not part of some wargear name. 'Grenade' is a 40k defined term after 'rad'. In order to decipher what 'grenade' means in the game we are required to find the definition for 'grenade' in the BRB.
There is no rule for 'grenade' in the Imperial Agent codex so we are required to look for the definition in the BRB.
Ceann wrote: Show me the page that state wargear names are rules.
Show me the page that states index is a special rule.
Why are you talking about "wargear names"?
Spoiler:
8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.
'grenade' is not capitalized so it is not part of some wargear name. 'Grenade' is a 40k defined term after 'rad'. In order to decipher what 'grenade' means in the game we are required to find the definition for 'grenade' in the BRB.
There is no rule for 'grenade' in the Imperial Agent codex so we are required to look for the definition in the BRB.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
What is the profile for grenade col?
I can't find it.
BTW if you would stop brain hammering over "grenade" and actually looked at the weapons listed in the entire weapons section, none of them are capitalized.
chainfist, bolter, chainsword, combi-weapon, stub guns, heavy stubbers, shotguns, missile launchers
And none of them have index references. So I guess none of them exist because they aren't in the index right?
You are pursuing, yet another, flawed argument.
Can you discard this useless waste of time and proceed to a relevant topic?
Show me the page that states "col_impact can determine the names of wargear"
Show me the page that states "index" is a rule.
If you actually looked at the weapons listed in the entire weapons section, none of them are capitalized.
chainfist, bolter, chainsword, combi-weapon, stub guns, heavy stubbers, shotguns, missile launchers
And none of them have index references. So I guess none of them exist because they aren't in the index right?
You are pursuing, yet another, flawed argument.
Can you discard this useless waste of time and proceed to a relevant topic?
Show me the page that states "col_impact can determine the names of wargear"
Show me the page that states "index" is a rule.
Ceann wrote: Are you serious sir? Are you going "you know who" also?
Page 180
"A model can use SUCH A GRENADE as a MELEE WEAPON."
SUCH = A grenade being used against a vehicle, MC or emplacement as notated in the section above titled Vehicles, Gun Enplacements and MC's located IN THE GRENADES SECTION of the rules.
MELEE WEAPON = A MELEE WEAPON, the things we used in CC.
"but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
"Different grenades have different takes when used in this manner, as explained below"
IN WHAT MANNER. AS A MELEE WEAPON, PAGE 180 in the GRENADE RULES.
What is explained below?
UNUSUAL GRENADES.
How do we know if we have an unusual grenade?
Because we are using it as a MELEE WEAPON, which is the manner described above where it told us it was explained below.
The above quote clearly existed.
The sentence, "Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below." does not exist. I gave it as an example of when the break-out box is being referenced. I even stated that specifically when I presented it.
The actual phrase states, "Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below."
You are applying it to the break-out box called "Unusual Grenades". The quote does not reference the break-out the box, though, so you are applying things without instruction.
The, "as explained below" is referencing "a grenade (used) as a Melee Weapon", as per the sentence preceding it.
If a weapon has different profiles, why would it then be referring to a box which starts out, "Some grenades do not have a profile"? The only explanation is that the break-out box is a side note, not to be kept up with the standards surrounding it.
Even more so, "below" the paragraph which talks about using grenades as a Melee weapon, we do see Krak Grenades, Haywire Grenades, and Meltabombs which do have rules and profiles regarding their use in Assault. So therefore, that paragraph can only be talking about those grenades and Wargear like them.
The attribution of that last paragraph before Assault Grenades which ends, "as explained below" to be meaning the "Unusual Grenades" break-out box is therefore contradictory to the language in both paragraphs and completely ignoring the context of both.
We are off the whole unusual grenades thing, we are playing word soup now with our friend col.
You must have missed the part where I decided I would just assert codex authority over the basic rule of unusual grenades that is not located in the special rules section, so it is not a special rule.
I was holding off on making that point because I was trying to help people understand the difference between basic rules and special rules but "you know who" decided to participate.
Because it is not a special rule it does not take precedence over codex:IA.
If you would like to participate in word soup you can stick around.
Brother Ramses wrote:Nothing tells you to reference the rules for Grenades in the BRB in the Rad Grenades so therefore you do not. You are pigeon-holing it based on a naming convention aka fluff aka RAI with absolutely no RAW telling you to do so. As was pointed out, other Grenades are specific in telling you to reference the grenade rules in the BRB and said rules are written as such. However lacking no explicit direction to reference the grenade rules in the BRB, your stance that you do and in turn the subsequent stance on Unusual Grenades is pure RAI with no basis in RAW.
Why does anything tell me to reference anything? They are Grenades by name, do their rules tell you to reference them as differently?
Furthermore, it was not my original stance, but simply a supportive one.
If we went by Caenn's summation, then nothing break's the games rules, because special rules are basic rules in special rules. He doesn't even think that Unit Type rules break the basic game rules, after all.
Ceann wrote: Are you serious sir? Are you going "you know who" also?
Page 180
"A model can use SUCH A GRENADE as a MELEE WEAPON."
SUCH = A grenade being used against a vehicle, MC or emplacement as notated in the section above titled Vehicles, Gun Enplacements and MC's located IN THE GRENADES SECTION of the rules.
MELEE WEAPON = A MELEE WEAPON, the things we used in CC.
"but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
"Different grenades have different takes when used in this manner, as explained below"
IN WHAT MANNER. AS A MELEE WEAPON, PAGE 180 in the GRENADE RULES.
What is explained below?
UNUSUAL GRENADES.
How do we know if we have an unusual grenade?
Because we are using it as a MELEE WEAPON, which is the manner described above where it told us it was explained below.
The above quote clearly existed.
The sentence, "Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained in the Unusual Grenades box below." does not exist. I gave it as an example of when the break-out box is being referenced. I even stated that specifically when I presented it.
The actual phrase states, "Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below."
You are applying it to the break-out box called "Unusual Grenades". The quote does not reference the break-out the box, though, so you are applying things without instruction.
The, "as explained below" is referencing "a grenade (used) as a Melee Weapon", as per the sentence preceding it.
If a weapon has different profiles, why would it then be referring to a box which starts out, "Some grenades do not have a profile"? The only explanation is that the break-out box is a side note, not to be kept up with the standards surrounding it.
Even more so, "below" the paragraph which talks about using grenades as a Melee weapon, we do see Krak Grenades, Haywire Grenades, and Meltabombs which do have rules and profiles regarding their use in Assault. So therefore, that paragraph can only be talking about those grenades and Wargear like them.
The attribution of that last paragraph before Assault Grenades which ends, "as explained below" to be meaning the "Unusual Grenades" break-out box is therefore contradictory to the language in both paragraphs and completely ignoring the context of both.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
Ceann wrote: If you actually looked at the weapons listed in the entire weapons section, none of them are capitalized.
chainfist, bolter, chainsword, combi-weapon, stub guns, heavy stubbers, shotguns, missile launchers
And none of them have index references. So I guess none of them exist because they aren't in the index right?
Those are just listing of weapons.
Spoiler:
8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.
'weapons' is a defined term in the BRB. Once you access that definition you will know to look for a profile. The Army List Entry rule allows you to look through whatever sources you need to find the profile.
Most of those weapons you listed have profiles in the BRB.
Brother Ramses wrote:Nothing tells you to reference the rules for Grenades in the BRB in the Rad Grenades so therefore you do not. You are pigeon-holing it based on a naming convention aka fluff aka RAI with absolutely no RAW telling you to do so. As was pointed out, other Grenades are specific in telling you to reference the grenade rules in the BRB and said rules are written as such. However lacking no explicit direction to reference the grenade rules in the BRB, your stance that you do and in turn the subsequent stance on Unusual Grenades is pure RAI with no basis in RAW.
Why does anything tell me to reference anything? They are Grenades by name, do their rules tell you to reference them as differently?
Furthermore, it was not my original stance, but simply a supportive one.
If we went by Caenn's summation, then nothing break's the games rules, because special rules are basic rules in special rules. He doesn't even think that Unit Type rules break the basic game rules, after all.
I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
We are off the whole unusual grenades thing, we are playing word soup now with our friend col.
You must have missed the part where I decided I would just assert codex authority over the basic rule of unusual grenades that is not located in the special rules section, so it is not a special rule.
I was holding off on making that point because I was trying to help people understand the difference between basic rules and special rules but "you know who" decided to participate.
Because it is not a special rule it does not take precedence over codex:IA.
If you would like to participate in word soup you can stick around.
I will address responses to me as I see fit. Admittedly, I did miss a couple pages over dinner and did not see them there when I went to respond.
But you are still vastly incorrect in thinking that Wargear do not carry special rules.
Wargear do carry special rules, but only when they are notated as having them. I do not assume they have them unless I am instructed that they have them. Such as on a weapon profile.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
Brother Ramses wrote:Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No, it is not RAW. Can you demonstrate a non-BRB Grenade that is presented in this manner?
Ceann wrote:I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
As I explained before. The game's rules are that units move 6". Nothing in Movement changes that or allows for that. The introduction talks about how they move, not distance. The exampled units have ways of ignoring Terrain, for example. However, Vehicles, Bikes, Cavalry, and Beasts can all move up to 12", and they are never noted as special rules, but do break this basic game rule.
Your response was that they were basic rules for unit types.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The rule for Army List Entry allows me to access the BRB definitions. Everything works according to RAW. Can you be specific as to what your problem is? You are just mindlessly chanting the same mantra over and over. I have already reported you for disruptive posting.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The rule for Army List Entry allows me to access the BRB definitions. Everything works according to RAW. Can you be specific as to what your problem is? You are just mindlessly chanting the same mantra over and over. I have already reported you for disruptive posting.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Brother Ramses wrote:Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No, it is not RAW. Can you demonstrate a non-BRB Grenade that is presented in this manner?
Ceann wrote:I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
As I explained before. The game's rules are that units move 6". Nothing in Movement changes that or allows for that. The introduction talks about how they move, not distance. The exampled units have ways of ignoring Terrain, for example. However, Vehicles, Bikes, Cavalry, and Beasts can all move up to 12", and they are never noted as special rules, but do break this basic game rule.
Your response was that they were basic rules for unit types.
The codex IA datasheet tells us to reference the page for the special wargear "rad grenades" we are not told to consult the BRB, we are not required too as codex takes precedence.
Page 156 BRB A compendium of special rules.
Some of the special rules you’ll encounter in this section have already been
mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you’ve yet to encounter at
all. We’ve presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when
trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
Note that it says they have presented them ALL in this section.
Anything not in this section, is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
All special rules from the BRB have been placed in this section.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.
Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?
There are separate indexed entries for heavy weapons and heavy vehicles. The Army List Entry rules allow you to access both definitions. You apply the rules from the correct referenced section based on context. If 'heavy' is listed in the weapon's type it is a heavy weapon per the Heavy Weapon rules.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.
Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?
There are separate indexed entries for heavy weapons and heavy vehicles. The Army List Entry rules allow you to access both definitions. You apply the rules from the correct referenced section based on context. If 'heavy' is listed in the weapon's type it is a heavy weapon per the Heavy Weapon rules.
Where do we find heavy as the listed type then?
And if I have a weapon named "chainfist" it isn't listed in the index, how do i find that?
WEAPON PROFILES
Range
Strength
AP Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn.
Brother Ramses wrote:Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No, it is not RAW. Can you demonstrate a non-BRB Grenade that is presented in this manner?
Ceann wrote:I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
As I explained before. The game's rules are that units move 6". Nothing in Movement changes that or allows for that. The introduction talks about how they move, not distance. The exampled units have ways of ignoring Terrain, for example. However, Vehicles, Bikes, Cavalry, and Beasts can all move up to 12", and they are never noted as special rules, but do break this basic game rule.
Your response was that they were basic rules for unit types.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
Rad grenades do no such thing. The RAW of their entry does not direct you to the BRB section on grenades at all. The only reference you might have to find in the BRB would be to determine what constitutes an assault and what constitutes an instant death threshold. But nothing at all directs you to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
It doesn't actually direct you to the BRB though. It just says 'assault and defensive grenades'. How do you know to look at the BRB for what those are? It's the word 'grenades' that leads you to that section in the BRB.
'rad grenades' say 'grenades' so you similarly look to the BRB for 'grenades'.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
It doesn't actually direct you to the BRB though. It just says 'assault and defensive grenades'. How do you know to look at the BRB for what those are?
'rad grenades' say 'grenades' so you similarly look to the BRB for 'grenades'.
Yes Col...
And if we go look for "grenades" on the in the BRB which "grenades" are we using? There are no "grenades" listed here. That is why the reference isn't valid, the rules for rad grenades are located in the codex. The datasheet tells us to the page to access for the rules of rad grenades.
If you open the BRB and look at the core rules, the items you reference are located in the core rules section. "grenades" are not a rule they are a weapon, listed in the weapon section. "grenades" do not apply to models, rules apply to models. "grenades" is not a basic rule.
And if we go look for "grenades" on the in the BRB which "grenades" are we using? There are no "grenades" listed here. That is why the reference isn't valid, the rules for rad grenades are located in the codex.
In the rules for 'grenades' you will find that 'rad grenades' are Unusual Grenades.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
There are no rules for grenades.
There are rules for weapons.
These weapons happen to have the names grenades.
Grenades are not rules, rules are in all the previous sections.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
It doesn't actually direct you to the BRB though. It just says 'assault and defensive grenades'. How do you know to look at the BRB for what those are? It's the word 'grenades' that leads you to that section in the BRB.
'rad grenades' say 'grenades' so you similarly look to the BRB for 'grenades'.
And if we go look for "grenades" on the in the BRB which "grenades" are we using? There are no "grenades" listed here. That is why the reference isn't valid, the rules for rad grenades are located in the codex.
In the rules for 'grenades' you will find that 'rad grenades' are Unusual Grenades.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
I did not find "rad grenades" in the entire BRB. I searched everywhere.
We already went over this and you told me where to find the wargear named "rad grenades" in the Codex:IA.
Wow, the last 6 pages of four people trying to prove who's the biggest troll. Another thread so muddied by stupid arguments that the original query has lost all meaning.
GRENADES OF THE 41 st MILLENNIUM
Grenades are small hand-held canisters packed with explosive charges and, sometimes, a more exotic payload, such as stumm gas. Grenades can be used to drive troops out of cover, set up smokescreens or even cripple tanks.
Some grenades can be used to make shooting attacks or attacks in the Fight sub-phase, albeit to different effect. Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase.
VEHICLES, GUN EMPLACEMENTS AND MONSTROUS CREATURES
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements (pg 109) and/or
Monstrous Creatures (including Flying Monstrous Creatures in Gliding mode), but have
to be clamped in place to maximise effect. All buildings are attacked in close combat as if
they were vehicles and therefore any grenade that can be used to attack a vehicle in close
combat can also be used against a building.
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make
one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered
in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades
cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
ASSAULT GRENADES
Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous frag grenade, can be hurled at the enemy as your
warriors charge into battle. The lethal storm of shrapnel from these grenades drives
opponents further under cover for a few precious moments, allowing attackers more
time to close in and, hopefully, get the first blow in against a disoriented foe.
Shooting
When a unit armed with assault grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose
to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models equipped with assault grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for
charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal Initiative in the
ensuing combat.
PLASMA GRENADES
Plasma grenades are a highly advanced type of assault grenade, commonly employed by
the Eldar.
Shooting
When a unit armed with plasma grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can
choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models equipped with plasma grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for
charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal Initiative step in the
ensuing combat.
Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures
Unlike ordinary assault grenades, plasma grenades can be used against vehicles, gun
emplacements and Monstrous Creatures in the Assault phase, using the following profile:
DEFENSIVE GRENADES
Defensive grenades, such as the photon grenades of the Tau, which emit multi-spectrum
light and a sonic burst, have dual uses. When being charged, these are thrown to
disorient the enemy attack; against shooting, they’re hurled to throw up clouds of
concealing gas or smoke.
Shooting
When a unit armed with defensive grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can
choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models charging a unit that includes any models equipped with defensive grenades do not
gain bonus Attacks from charging (pg 49). However, if the charged unit was already
locked in combat from a previous turn, or has Gone to Ground, these grenades have no
effect and the attackers gain bonus Attacks as normal.
HAYWIRE GRENADES
Haywire grenades release electromagnetic pulses that damage vehicles.
Shooting
When a unit armed with haywire grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can
choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Unless used in assaults against vehicles, haywire grenades have no effect. When used in
assault against vehicles, haywire grenades have the following profile:
KRAK GRENADES
Krak grenades are implosive charges designed to crack vehicle armour.
Shooting
When a unit armed with krak grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose to
throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Unless used in assaults against vehicles, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, krak
grenades have no effect. When they are used in assaults against vehicles, gun
emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, krak grenades have the following profile:
MELTA BOMBS
Melta bombs are fusion charges designed to burn through an armoured hull in a matter
of seconds.
Shooting
Melta bombs are cumbersome devices. Melta bombs cannot be used to make a shooting
attack.
Assault
Unless used in assaults against vehicles, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures,
melta bombs have no effect. When used in assaults against vehicles, buildings, gun
emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, melta bombs have the following profile:
In there you will find that rad grenades are Unusual Grenades.
I did not find "rad grenades" in the entire BRB. I searched everywhere.
We already went over this and you told me where to find the wargear named "rad grenades" in the Codex:IA.
I found 'grenades' in the BRB.
I did not find a definition for 'grenades' in C:IA. Therefore, in order to decipher what 'grenades' in C:IA means I am required to use the BRB definition.
Yes I know what a weapon is.
A grenade is a weapon.
"rad grenades" is special wargear.
So rad grenades is a kind of wargear, just like chainfist is a kind of weapon.
Yup, and a Frag grenade is also special wargear, a kind of grenade, and a kind of weapon.
A rad grenades is also special wargear, a kind of grenade, and a kind of weapon.
Under the grenade rules you will find that a rad grenade is an Unusual Grenade.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
You will find the special rule associated with the effect of the Unusual Grenade in C:IA.
Spoiler:
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
WEAPONS make ATTACKS.
GRENADES are not rules.
GRENADES are WEAPONS.
WEAPONS have rules, GRENADES do not have rules.
Everything listed on page 180 that you quoted, those of the names of WEAPONS of the type grenade.
Grenades are not an independent entity.
Grenades are weapons, located in the weapons section.
Rad grenades are not a weapon.
I will not find "rad grenades" are Unusual Grenades.
Rad grenades are of the type "Special Wargear" in Codex: IA, not of the type Weapons.
The DATASHEET for an Inquisitor where you can purchase them tells you the name, and of the page, within the codex with rules for the Special Wargear "rad grenades".
And in the codex... "the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Therefore "rad grenades" are special wargear, not a Weapon with the type grenades.
Basic Vs Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
As you can see, grenades are not a basic rule, we do not refer to grenades unless we are told to do so. The other questions you had about ID any anything are covered under the rules of Basic vs Advanced which tells us the basic rules that always apply from the BRB.
I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
WEAPONS make ATTACKS.
GRENADES are not rules.
GRENADES are WEAPONS.
WEAPONS have rules, GRENADES do not have rules.
Everything listed on page 180 that you quoted, those of the names of WEAPONS of the type grenade.
Grenades are not an independent entity.
Incorrect. They have their own set of rules just as ranged weapons have their own set of rules.
Ceann wrote: Grenades are weapons, located in the weapons section.
Rad grenades are not a weapon.
I will not find "rad grenades" are Unusual Grenades.
Rad grenades are of the type "Special Wargear" in Codex: IA, not of the type Weapons.
The DATASHEET for an Inquisitor where you can purchase them tells you the name, and of the page, within the codex with rules for the Special Wargear "rad grenades".
And in the codex... "the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Therefore "rad grenades" are special wargear, not a Weapon with the type grenades.
Basic Vs Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
As you can see, grenades are not a basic rule, we do not refer to grenades unless we are told to do so. The other questions you had about ID any anything are covered under the rules of Basic vs Advanced which tells us the basic rules that always apply from the BRB.
Wargear is an umbrella term for weapons and equipment
Spoiler:
8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.
Special issue wargear includes both weapons and equipment (e.g. melta bombs and auspexes)
rad grenades are called out as grenades in the rad grenades rule. There is no definition for 'grenade' in C:IA so we look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenade'.
A rad grenade is a kind of special wargear, a kind of grenade, and a kind of weapon. Under the grenade rules you will find that a rad grenade is an Unusual Grenade. You will find the special rule associated with the effect of the Unusual Grenade in C:IA.
If you know what RAW is then you know that I am correct about the status of unusual grenades you are fabricating nonsense.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold)."
During, isn't in the index, in which, isn't in the index, launches, isn't in the index, penalty, isni't in the index.
We can go down this trivial road you have invented forever playing word games and finding things that aren't in the index, for which you still have never told us where RAW states you are even supposed to do.
The BASIC RULES are allowed to be referenced per the basic vs advanced which states...
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
If you are attempting to consult the BRB for any other reason, UNLESS EXPLICITY INSTRUCTED ON THE DATASHEET, then you are not allowed to do so.
'grenade" is not a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule. You are not permitted to access the index because it is not any of the above listed items either.
"Called out" is not a rule either. Another fabrication.
Just like the "consult the index" rule.
Stop inventing rules.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
the rad grenade entry calls itself 'grenades'. It's lower case so I have no choice but to look for a definition of 'grenades'. The C:IA does not supply a definition for 'grenades';therefore, I look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. If 'grenades' were capitalized as a proper noun I would not have to accept it as a named unique entity but since its not capitalized I have to use the BRB provided definition.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
the rad grenade entry calls itself 'grenades'. It's lower case so I have no choice but to look for a definition of 'grenades'. The C:IA does not supply a definition for 'grenades';therefore, I look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. If 'grenades' were capitalized as a proper noun I would not have to accept it as a named unique entity but since its not capitalized I have to use the BRB provided definition.
Why would you look to the definition of grenade?
Grenades are a weapon, grenades are using to make a shooting attack or melee attack.
The rules for "rad grenades" do not tell you to make an attack, so you are not given permission to access grenade.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
the rad grenade entry calls itself 'grenades'. It's lower case so I have no choice but to look for a definition of 'grenades'. The C:IA does not supply a definition for 'grenades';therefore, I look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. If 'grenades' were capitalized as a proper noun I would not have to accept it as a named unique entity but since its not capitalized I have to use the BRB provided definition.
All RAI with zero reference to actual rules.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
It does not.
Rules in the Codex take PRECEDENCE over every other "publication".
The basic rules state... "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.
Why would you look to the definition of grenade?
Grenades are a weapon, grenades are using to make a shooting attack or melee attack.
The rules for "rad grenades" do not tell you to make an attack, so you are not given permission to access grenade.
C:IA does not provide a definition for 'grenades'. Therefore, I must look to the BRB for a definition.
Not all grenades make attacks. Unusual grenades do not make attacks. 'Rad grenades' are Unusual Grenades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: It does not.
Rules in the Codex take PRECEDENCE over every other "publication".
The basic rules state... "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.
There is no conflict.
The codex rule is using a BRB defined term and not providing its own definition. I have no choice but to access the BRB to decipher it.
'grenades' is not capitalized. It's a defined term in the BRB. You have no argument.
The basic vs advanced rules tell you the circumstance under which you are allowed to use the BRB.
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
Are you saying that the weapon - grenades, are a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule?
Show me what page that exists on.
Also show me what page that states weapon names are rules.
You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.
The Army List Entry rule allows me to look into any 40k publication.
The codex is not providing a definition of 'grenades'; therefore, my quest leads to the BRB where it is defined.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
Reported for disruptive posting. You need to add something to the thread. This is pure mindless disruptive posting.
I already explained why;
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
is not disruptive posting. It directly contradicts your repetitive posts that do not follow the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions, and then continue to post them falsely as RAW. You choose to continue posting without providing any RAW to support your argument over and over and the only counter is to post the above over and over in return to counter it. If you want to actually advance the discussion cite the rules that allow you to disregard the RAW of the wargear entry, cite the rules that allow you to use a naming convention to dictate what rules you follow, and lastly cite the rules that tell you that said naming convention is validated by the use of the BRB index. Unless you can provide rules citations for each instance, your argument is based upon your assumptions and they continue to ignore the RAW.
You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.
The Army List Entry rule allows me to look into any 40k publication.
The codex is not providing a definition of 'grenades'; therefore, my quest leads to the BRB where it is defined.
God forbid that your "quest" actually lead you to the Rule As Written.....
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
is not disruptive posting. It directly contradicts your repetitive posts that do not follow the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions, and then continue to post them falsely as RAW. You choose to continue posting without providing any RAW to support your argument over and over and the only counter is to post the above over and over in return to counter it. If you want to actually advance the discussion cite the rules that allow you to disregard the RAW of the wargear entry, cite the rules that allow you to use a naming convention to dictate what rules you follow, and lastly cite the rules that tell you that said naming convention is validated by the use of the BRB index. Unless you can provide rules citations for each instance, your argument is based upon your assumptions and they continue to ignore the RAW.
The rad grenade rule uses 'grenade' in the lower case in the rule itself. It's not a proper noun.
Spoiler:
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
In order to understand the rule, I need to understand what 'grenades' are. C:IA does not provide a definition for 'grenades' (I checked); therefore, I can look to other publications (per the Army List Entry rule) for definition/rules for 'grenades'. I find them in the BRB.
Do you remember your magical flying bike captain?
The codex also btw is not a quest giver.
Remember how all those things on his data sheet said "See Codex: Space Marines" and you told me that you did not dispute that it was there? So you have already previously admitted that you need permission to access specific documentation.
The basic vs advanced rules state the codex takes precedence, you can LOOK at whatever publication you want, for as long as you want, the codex still takes precedence.
You have not been permitted to access the BRB for weapons, if you were then under the wargear entry provided for rad grenades it would tell you to see the BRB. Which it has not. This is a precedence for all datasheets or wargear that reference the BRB.
You are assuming a permission you do not have.
Just another trick you pull when you don't have an argument.
You cannot argue that a weapon - grenades is a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule.
So you changed your argument to Army List Entry nonsense, and once I defeat you on that "which just happened again" you will change your argument again to something else.
Are we going back to "nouns" or something else now?
This is really getting quite silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh we actually are going back to nouns, I am kind of saddened that I called that before I even finished my post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So do nouns qualify as... is a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule.
Please show me the page rule for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Army List Entry rule dictates that all possible information about a unit comes from reference's directly on the Army List Entry rule or qualifiys as "is a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule. "
As 'grenade" is not on the Army List Entry rule for an IA Inquisitor you are not permitted to access any information about 'grenade' in the BRB. As far as the codex is concerned, it doesnt exist. Permission is given, you are assuming you have it.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
is not disruptive posting. It directly contradicts your repetitive posts that do not follow the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions, and then continue to post them falsely as RAW. You choose to continue posting without providing any RAW to support your argument over and over and the only counter is to post the above over and over in return to counter it. If you want to actually advance the discussion cite the rules that allow you to disregard the RAW of the wargear entry, cite the rules that allow you to use a naming convention to dictate what rules you follow, and lastly cite the rules that tell you that said naming convention is validated by the use of the BRB index. Unless you can provide rules citations for each instance, your argument is based upon your assumptions and they continue to ignore the RAW.
The rad grenade rule uses 'grenade' in the lower case in the rule itself. It's not a proper noun.
Spoiler:
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
In order to understand the rule, I need to understand what 'grenades' are. C:IA does not provide a definition for 'grenades' (I checked); therefore, I can look to other publications (per the Army List Entry rule) for definition/rules for 'grenades'. I find them in the BRB.
This is all 100% according to RAW.
Actually no, you have no need to understand what "grenades" are, only that the unit be equipped with them and if the unit equipped with them launches an assault, or is assaulted. That is it. Everything you need to understand the wargear entry is given to you RAW.
You are creating a rule out of thin air, out of need to prop up your RAI assumption of a naming convention that is not supported by any RAW whatsoever. And once again since you insist on claiming RAW:
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
As 'grenade" is not on the Army List Entry rule for an IA Inquisitor you are not permitted to access any information about 'grenade' in the BRB. As far as the codex is concerned, it doesnt exist. Permission is given, you are assuming you have it.
'grenades' is all over the place in C:IA and on the Inquisitor datasheet. Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades. In all of these cases 'grenades' is not capitalized and so is not a proper noun. 'grenades' in each of these cases is a kind of wargear and a kind of weapon.
'grenades' is not defined by C:IA so I look to the BRB40k publication as per the Army List Entry rule.
Actually no, you have no need to understand what "grenades" are, only that the unit be equipped with them and if the unit equipped with them launches an assault, or is assaulted. That is it. Everything you need to understand the wargear entry is given to you RAW.
You are creating a rule out of thin air, out of need to prop up your RAI assumption of a naming convention that is not supported by any RAW whatsoever. And once again since you insist on claiming RAW:
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
C:IA uses the term 'grenades' in several places and does not define it (Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades). The BRB however defines the term. I have no choice but to access the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. The term carries special meaning in 40k. It is an indexed term in the BRB.
Incorrect again col. Remember see codex: Space marines?
The entry's on the referenced page for rad grenades does not tell you to see the BRB for any rules. So you are not permitted too.
In order to have permission the entry for rad grenades has to be notated that you do so either on the indicated page or the Army entry list. The only brb rules you may access by default per the Army entry list are the basic rules mentioned in basic vs advanced.
It has no such reference so you can read about brb grenades all you but according to the codex they do not exist in reference to rad grenades.
Ceann wrote: Incorrect again col. Remember see codex: Space marines?
The entry's on the referenced page for rad grenades does not tell you to see the BRB for any rules. So you are not permitted too.
In order to have permission the entry for rad grenades has to be notated that you do so either on the indicated page or the Army entry list.
It has no such reference so you can read about brb grenades all you but according to the codex they do not exist in reference to rad grenades.
The Army List Entry rule allows me to access any 40k publication for a definition of 'grenades' since C:IA does not provide one. I find definition and rules for 'grenades' in the BRB. What rule did I break?
Basic vs advanced.
You are told that the basic rules for moving, shooting, close combat and morale apply to all models.
You are then told the codex and the army list entry has precedence. Unless the codex or entry tells you to access 40k: The rules, for grenades then you are not allowed too. Only the basic rules apply to the codex. Grenade is not a basic rule for movement, shooting, close combat or morale.
There is no reference for rad grenades for you to access the BRB. The codex has precedence.
Ceann wrote: Basic vs advanced.
You are told that the basic rules for moving, shooting, close combat and morale apply to all models.
You are then told the codex and the army list entry has precedence. Unless the codex or entry tells you to access 40k: The rules, for grenades then you are not allowed too. Only the basic rules apply to the codex. Grenade is not a basic rule for movement, shooting, close combat or morale.
Basic versus Advanced only applies in the case of a conflict.
C:IA does not have a definition of 'grenades' so there can not possibly be a conflict.
Therefore we have to look at the BRB for a definition of 'grenades'.
There is no reference for rad grenades for you to access the BRB. The codex has precedence.
'grenades' is used all over the place in C:IA for a variety of different kinds of grenades (Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades)
C:IA does not provide any definition for 'grenades' so it presents no conflict and surrenders its precedence to other 40k publications.
The player has no choice but to get a definition for 'grenades' from the BRB.
Don't worry, because Melta bombs don't say grenade, they don't have to reference grenade rules. A squad can use 10 of them at once in assault because they're not grenades and don't follow the only 1 per phase per squad because of its name.
HANZERtank wrote: Don't worry, because Melta bombs don't say grenade, they don't have to reference grenade rules. A squad can use 10 of them at once in assault because they're not grenades and don't follow the only 1 per phase per squad because of its name.
Thank for clearing that up col!
The profiles for Melta Bombs are included in the Grenades section. If they weren't included in that section it would indeed be hard to determine what they are and to indeed apply this rule . . .
Spoiler:
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
However, they are listed in the Grenade section and so are 'grenades' by inclusion in that section.
As you know, it's a lot more straightforward in the case of Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, and Psychotroke grenades.
Surrender precedence is not a rule Col. Show me the page that states this.
A codex does not surrender precedence col. If you read rad grenades and don't know what a grenade is, then a grenade doesn't exist as far as the codex is concerned and the word is being used in a descriptive context of the wargear not a defined term. You are required to be told by the data sheet of an item in question and it must to tell you to reference the BRB for that item, or permission is not granted outside of the basic rules specified sections outlined in basic vs advanced.
Basic vs advanced rules.
Unless the term grenade falls under "movement, shooting, close combat, or morale rules that apply to all models", permission is not granted.
Codex: Dad - Hey there Col.
Col: Dad, what is a grenade I see it here as a war thing.
Codex: Dad - That is nothing Col for you, do not worry about it, it is part of dad's work.
Col: Mom what is a grenade?
BRB:Mom - Col that is part of your dad's work one day when you are grown up your dad will tell you about grenade but it is his choice.
Col: But I wanna know now!
BRB:Mom - No, not now Col, it is your dad's choice and when he is good and ready he will let you know. Now eat your peas.
Col:Ugh, yes BRB:Mom
Ceann wrote: If you open the BRB and look at the core rules, the items you reference are located in the core rules section. "grenades" are not a rule they are a weapon, listed in the weapon section. "grenades" do not apply to models, rules apply to models. "grenades" is not a basic rule.
So if I have a unit that's given an option to trade in a weapon for some other weapon, I can trade in the grenade?
Tehcnically it's not in the "weapon" section even though it's grouped after "ranged weapons of the 41st millenium" and "melee weapons of the 41st millenium", but they don't refer to the section as a weapons section. They follow this up with "Terrain Datasheets" using the same font size and style - does that mean Terrain Datasheets are weapons also?
I'll agree that "grenades" are not a basic rule. Rad grenades do fit the description of unusual grenades though, in that they do not have a profile, can not be thrown or used as a Melee weapon. It's just a moot point since you don't need to reference the unusual grenade rules, just the rad grenade rules - which only have a -1 effect for the rest of the phase on a unit assaulted by units with rad grenades. The rad grenade rules themselves indicate no stacking.
Ceann wrote: The codex IA datasheet tells us to reference the page for the special wargear "rad grenades" we are not told to consult the BRB, we are not required too as codex takes precedence.
The datasheet is irrelevant as it doesn't tell you what Rad Grenades do or are. The datasheet doesn't tell you to refer to Assault Grenades when looking up Frag Grenades, either. That is performed in the Armoury.
Ceann wrote: Page 156 BRB A compendium of special rules.
Some of the special rules you’ll encounter in this section have already been
mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you’ve yet to encounter at
all. We’ve presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when
trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
Note that it says they have presented them ALL in this section.
Anything not in this section, is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
All special rules from the BRB have been placed in this section.
Those are the ones you have encountered so far in reading the rulebook.
And right before that it states, "Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list."
And, no, Basic rules are defined as, "rules (that) apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale", not "rules not posted in the special rules section".
Special Rules are defined as, "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules", not "rules posted in this section".
Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.
Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?
Heavy is also a Type, and that Type takes precedence over the name.
Regardless, of that, Wargear still carry special rules. Some are common like Terminator Armour providing Relentless, while some are not common like Terminator Armour denying Sweeping Advances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Ramses wrote:Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
Rad grenades do no such thing. The RAW of their entry does not direct you to the BRB section on grenades at all. The only reference you might have to find in the BRB would be to determine what constitutes an assault and what constitutes an instant death threshold. But nothing at all directs you to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Sorry, doesn't fly. That's no different than Frag Grenades referring to Assault Grenades. Can you find a Grenade that doesn't have a profile but still refers you to using the Grenades section of BRB?
Ceann wrote: The codex IA datasheet tells us to reference the page for the special wargear "rad grenades" we are not told to consult the BRB, we are not required too as codex takes precedence.
The datasheet is irrelevant as it doesn't tell you what Rad Grenades do or are. The datasheet doesn't tell you to refer to Assault Grenades when looking up Frag Grenades, either. That is performed in the Armoury.
Ceann wrote: Page 156 BRB A compendium of special rules.
Some of the special rules you’ll encounter in this section have already been
mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you’ve yet to encounter at
all. We’ve presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when
trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
Note that it says they have presented them ALL in this section.
Anything not in this section, is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
All special rules from the BRB have been placed in this section.
Those are the ones you have encountered so far in reading the rulebook.
And right before that it states, "Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list."
And, no, Basic rules are defined as, "rules (that) apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale", not "rules not posted in the special rules section".
Special Rules are defined as, "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules", not "rules posted in this section".
Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.
Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?
Heavy is also a Type, and that Type takes precedence over the name.
Regardless, of that, Wargear still carry special rules. Some are common like Terminator Armour providing Relentless, while some are not common like Terminator Armour denying Sweeping Advances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Ramses wrote:Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
Rad grenades do no such thing. The RAW of their entry does not direct you to the BRB section on grenades at all. The only reference you might have to find in the BRB would be to determine what constitutes an assault and what constitutes an instant death threshold. But nothing at all directs you to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Sorry, doesn't fly. That's no different than Frag Grenades referring to Assault Grenades. Can you find a Grenade that doesn't have a profile but still refers you to using the Grenades section of BRB?
Hahaha, I give you exactly what you ask for and you misdirect. Do you even have the Chaos codex to view the entry? Frag Grenades are in their own callout box with the header that they are found in the Warhammer 40k rule book and it has an asterisk telling you to refer to Assault Grenades. Blight Grenades are their own wargear entry, completely separate from the callout of Grenades. Because you asked you must not have the codex or you would not make such an response devoid of any sense.
Ceann wrote: Basic vs advanced.
You are told that the basic rules for moving, shooting, close combat and morale apply to all models.
You are then told the codex and the army list entry has precedence. Unless the codex or entry tells you to access 40k: The rules, for grenades then you are not allowed too. Only the basic rules apply to the codex. Grenade is not a basic rule for movement, shooting, close combat or morale.
Basic versus Advanced only applies in the case of a conflict.
C:IA does not have a definition of 'grenades' so there can not possibly be a conflict.
Therefore we have to look at the BRB for a definition of 'grenades'.
There is no reference for rad grenades for you to access the BRB. The codex has precedence.
'grenades' is used all over the place in C:IA for a variety of different kinds of grenades (Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades)
C:IA does not provide any definition for 'grenades' so it presents no conflict and surrenders its precedence to other 40k publications.
The player has no choice but to get a definition for 'grenades' from the BRB.
Had to get in the obligatory counter to col_impact just pulling rules out of nowhere;
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The data sheet tells you what page of the codex to see for the rad grenades information. The rules for them are on that page, there is no reference on the page to refer to the BRB grenade rules, so you do not. The armory does tell you to refer to the codex for other grenades and lists the ones that specifically apply, referring to the brb is never assumed.
Special rules are defined as special rules. You point out that it states the list is not exhaustive, that is correct in regards to other documents/codexs. It has already stated ALL special rules have been presented here. Therefore any special rule in the BRB has been presented. You are not permitted to determine what is and is not a special rule. You are TOLD when they are a special rule. PER advanced vs basic, other codexs army list entry's tells you what rules are also special rules therefore meeting the criteria that the list in the brb is not exhaustive. You are not given permission to hold your own personal court and dub special rules as you see fit.
Ex. Rad saturation, chapter tactics, incense cloud, reanimation protocols.
Please demonstrate something that breaks this precedence set for special rules being explicitly identified, your incorrect branding and correlation between basic and advanced rules is flawed and I feel like you are making assumptions that I am not.
When I was speaking to dear col about basic vs advanced was in regards to what the codex permits you to use from the BRB in regards to basic rules, grenades are not located in those listed sections nor are you referred to that section by rad grenades, meaning the rules in the codex therefore has precedence. Only special rules in the BRB take precedence over a codex basic rules.
Heavy is not a type when it is a name, or are you stating a heavy flamer is not an assault weapon? A weapons type is determined by its profile not by its name.
As for grenades there really aren't any, this unusual grenades thong is a fabrication being applied out of hand, it is a basic rule for grenades in the weapons section of the BRB. Meltabombs and haywire grenades do not have a melee profile, using them as a melee weapon therefore breaks the rules. Hence unusual grenades directs you to the special rules section for those grenades being the melta and haywire special rules. You will find that the criteria for unusual grenades apply to various grenades in that section in one form or another. This is a basic rule for grenades to clarify deviations from the other basic rules just as a beast basic movement rule states it means 12 instead of the 6 that was used in the examples when using infantry models to explain the rules to the reader.
Brother Ramses wrote: Hahaha, I give you exactly what you ask for and you misdirect. Do you even have the Chaos codex to view the entry? Frag Grenades are in their own callout box with the header that they are found in the Warhammer 40k rule book and it has an asterisk telling you to refer to Assault Grenades. Blight Grenades are their own wargear entry, completely separate from the callout of Grenades. Because you asked you must not have the codex or you would not make such an response devoid of any sense.
No, you did not give me what I asked for. You gave me the same thing as Frag Grenades. Your own statements supported that. They count as Assault Grenades and Krak Grenades. Do those have profiles? Yes, they do. So, Blight Grenades have profiles just as much as Frag Grenades do. Being something that already exists in the Grenade rules is pointless for this exercise. Rad Grenades do not do this, which makes Blight Grenades pointless for the question.
Can you provide a reference to another Grenade that refers back to the Grenade rules that isn't just a "it's actually just this weapon with a different name"?
Basic rules apply to all models in the game unless stated otherwise.
Does this effect apply to all models? Yes.
So all grenades reduce Toughness according to your claim.
No, any model that interacts with this wargear in this fashion. No model is treated differently than others. Basic rules apply to all models.
Does skyfire apply to all models? No. Hence skyfire is a special rule, and no surprise it is located in the special rules section.
Can you name a model that would assault a unit equipped with rad grenades and not get -1? Then that would be a special rule..
I love how you are completely avoiding these questions. Your answer had nothing to do with what I asked. Unless you admit that all grenades cause -1 T, then you have a rule that breaks the basic game rules and therefore is a "special rule"
The data sheet tells you what page of the codex to see for the rad grenades information. The rules for them are on that page, there is no reference on the page to refer to the BRB grenade rules, so you do not. The armory does tell you to refer to the codex for other grenades and lists the ones that specifically apply, referring to the brb is never assumed.
Not what I said. Datasheets do not tell you what these things are. The only time you see Wargear detailed on a datasheet is for Relics, just like unit unique special rules.
Referring to the BRB is always based on some thing. How do you know what T or Toughness is without referring to the BRB?
Referring to the BRB for Wargear established in the BRB is standard procedure. Rad Grenades are not defined in the BRB, so are defined in the local Armoury. What Rad Grenades do is not defined in the BRB, so it is all spelled out.
Ceann wrote: Special rules are defined as special rules. You point out that it states the list is not exhaustive, that is correct in regards to other documents/codexs. It has already stated ALL special rules have been presented here. Therefore any special rule in the BRB has been presented. You are not permitted to determine what is and is not a special rule. You are TOLD when they are a special rule. PER advanced vs basic, other codexs army list entry's tells you what rules are also special rules therefore meeting the criteria that the list in the brb is not exhaustive. You are not given permission to hold your own personal court and dub special rules as you see fit.
Ex. Rad saturation, chapter tactics, incense cloud, reanimation protocols.
Please demonstrate something that breaks this precedence set for special rules being explicitly identified, your incorrect branding and correlation between basic and advanced rules is flawed and I feel like you are making assumptions that I am not.
My branding of basic and advanced are what are defined by the rulebook. Can you provide any other definition of basic rule provided by the rulebook? Can you provide any other definition of special rule provided by the rulebook? You have not yet done this yet, and ignored all other references which have defined them as such.
You have only gone by location, which has been noted as non-exhaustive. The "all" in the sentence you stated is referring to the ones you have seen in the book and the common ones used all over the place. Again, the list is not exhaustive nor exclusionary.
Ceann wrote: When I was speaking to dear col about basic vs advanced was in regards to what the codex permits you to use from the BRB in regards to basic rules, grenades are not located in those listed sections nor are you referred to that section by rad grenades, meaning the rules in the codex therefore has precedence. Only special rules in the BRB take precedence over a codex basic rules.
Actually no, they don't. Codex "basic" rules do not exist. All codex rules are more advanced than any special rule in the BRB. The train is Basic < Advanced < Codex. No matter how basic the new rule is in a codex, it overrides any conflicts with any BRB rule, even special ones.
Ceann wrote: Heavy is not a type when it is a name, or are you stating a heavy flamer is not an assault weapon? A weapons type is determined by its profile not by its name.
Did I not state the Type takes priority? As in the Type of the Profile. You know a Weapon Profile which lists Range, Str, AP, and TYPE?
Ceann wrote: As for grenades there really aren't any, this unusual grenades thong is a fabrication being applied out of hand, it is a basic rule for grenades in the weapons section of the BRB. Meltabombs and haywire grenades do not have a melee profile, using them as a melee weapon therefore breaks the rules. Hence unusual grenades directs you to the special rules section for those grenades being the melta and haywire special rules. You will find that the criteria for unusual grenades apply to various grenades in that section in one form or another. This is a basic rule for grenades to clarify deviations from the other basic rules just as a beast basic movement rule states it means 12 instead of the 6 that was used in the examples when using infantry models to explain the rules to the reader.
It is not a fabrication. I will admit a bit of a stretch to referring to the Grenades rules, but the Unusual Grenades concept still stands as its own concept, no matter how applicable they are in this situation, and they are not tied to that paragraph in the way that you have been asserting.
Unusual Grenades never state, "special rules section". It states, "Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules."
Again, get your head out of this bizarre concept that the location of the rule is the only thing that matters and look at the definition which has been provided by the rulebook. At no point is location ever provided as the definition of what a special rule is.
Fro my reading of the rules this is how it works:
"If a unit containing a model with Rad Grenades charges or is charged by an enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -1T"
Note that: A unit. A model.
Therefore by my reading if two Xenos Inquisitors with Rad grenades are in the same unit and charge an enemy unit then that enemy unit only suffers -1T. However if those same two inquisitors where to be in separate units/independent and they both charged the same enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -2T.
So yes, it does stack, but only from multiple units.
Brother Ramses wrote: Hahaha, I give you exactly what you ask for and you misdirect. Do you even have the Chaos codex to view the entry? Frag Grenades are in their own callout box with the header that they are found in the Warhammer 40k rule book and it has an asterisk telling you to refer to Assault Grenades. Blight Grenades are their own wargear entry, completely separate from the callout of Grenades. Because you asked you must not have the codex or you would not make such an response devoid of any sense.
No, you did not give me what I asked for. You gave me the same thing as Frag Grenades. Your own statements supported that. They count as Assault Grenades and Krak Grenades. Do those have profiles? Yes, they do. So, Blight Grenades have profiles just as much as Frag Grenades do. Being something that already exists in the Grenade rules is pointless for this exercise. Rad Grenades do not do this, which makes Blight Grenades pointless for the question.
Can you provide a reference to another Grenade that refers back to the Grenade rules that isn't just a "it's actually just this weapon with a different name"?
No, you asked me for a non-BRB grenade that refers you to the BRB. I gave you Blight, a non-BRB grenade that refers you to the BRB. You say it is like Frag which it isn't since Frag is specififally called out to check the BRB with an asterisk to be treated as Assault. But by all means, show me the Blight Grenades in the BRB. By all means show me the profiles for Blight Grenades in the Chaos Codex.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game unless stated otherwise.
Does this effect apply to all models? Yes.
So all grenades reduce Toughness according to your claim.
No, any model that interacts with this wargear in this fashion. No model is treated differently than others. Basic rules apply to all models.
Does skyfire apply to all models? No. Hence skyfire is a special rule, and no surprise it is located in the special rules section.
Can you name a model that would assault a unit equipped with rad grenades and not get -1? Then that would be a special rule..
I love how you are completely avoiding these questions. Your answer had nothing to do with what I asked. Unless you admit that all grenades cause -1 T, then you have a rule that breaks the basic game rules and therefore is a "special rule"
Tell me the rule that is being broken.
The special rules section states that all special rules are presented there, explicitly please go read the page. Therefore any rule in the BRB that is not presented in the special rules section is not a special rule. You do not get to decide what is and is not a special rule, you are told what they are. The section also notated the list is not exhaustive which is correct and any special rule not in the brb is notated on the Army List Entry which meets the not exhaustive critera.
Please tell me the basic rule that you feel is being broken so I can contest your point. You are not doing this, you are demanding I make some clarification for you without telling me what it is you want me to clarify.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How do I know own what toughness is without referring to the BRB?
Basic vs advanced states the rules that apply to all models and it lists those rules sections. Other than those listed sections you consult the codex which has precedence for all purposes other than the basic rules because any conflict goes with the rules.of the codex.
You are permitted to access those rules.
The entry for an inquisitor tells you to go to page 137 or whatever to see rad grenades, thereby meeting the basic vs advanced criteria of following the list entry.
Basic vs advanced provides you access to the core rules while using the codex, it does not grant you access to the other sections of the BRB those access options will be provided to you in the codex on an as needed basis.
I am glad we agree on heavy flamers, I think you are confused by those comments and others I make because I respond to col and you do not see the nonsense I am refuting from him. So now that I think about it, this must be why you perceive me as crazy at times. My apologies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the grenades. It tells you to see their special rules, The weapon section does clarify that special rules are listed after the weapon type on the profile. So weapons do directly refer you to the special rules section. This is per how profiles are described in that section.
master of ordinance wrote: Fro my reading of the rules this is how it works:
"If a unit containing a model with Rad Grenades charges or is charged by an enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -1T"
Note that: A unit. A model.
Therefore by my reading if two Xenos Inquisitors with Rad grenades are in the same unit and charge an enemy unit then that enemy unit only suffers -1T. However if those same two inquisitors where to be in separate units/independent and they both charged the same enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -2T.
So yes, it does stack, but only from multiple units.
Great minds think alike!
I am of the same opinion here, but came to the conclusion in a different scenario involving an enemy unit committing to a disordered charge against two units with Rad Grenades. The effect would stack to -2. However just like your example of two IC with Rad Grenades in one unit, no stack.
master of ordinance wrote: Fro my reading of the rules this is how it works:
"If a unit containing a model with Rad Grenades charges or is charged by an enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -1T"
Note that: A unit. A model.
Therefore by my reading if two Xenos Inquisitors with Rad grenades are in the same unit and charge an enemy unit then that enemy unit only suffers -1T. However if those same two inquisitors where to be in separate units/independent and they both charged the same enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -2T.
So yes, it does stack, but only from multiple units.
Great minds think alike!
I am of the same opinion here, but came to the conclusion in a different scenario involving an enemy unit committing to a disordered charge against two units with Rad Grenades. The effect would stack to -2. However just like your example of two IC with Rad Grenades in one unit, no stack.
Indeed!
Well, as the rules to specify A unit with a model holding Rad Grenades then it does make sense that the effects from multiple units would stack, according to RAW and Rule of Common Sense.
You are permitted to access those rules.
The entry for an inquisitor tells you to go to page 137 or whatever to see rad grenades, thereby meeting the basic vs advanced criteria of following the list entry.
Basic vs advanced provides you access to the core rules while using the codex, it does not grant you access to the other sections of the BRB those access options will be provided to you in the codex on an as needed basis.
I am glad we agree on heavy flamers, I think you are confused by those comments and others I make because I respond to col and you do not see the nonsense I am refuting from him. So now that I think about it, this must be why you perceive me as crazy at times. My apologies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the grenades. It tells you to see their special rules, The weapon section does clarify that special rules are listed after the weapon type on the profile. So weapons do directly refer you to the special rules section. This is per how profiles are described in that section.
That's rather disingenuous of you there. Unusual grenades starts by saying "some grenades do not have a profile." before saying "Any efrfects that they have will be covered in their special rules." Claiming that they are talking about unusual grenades' special rules as being listed in a profile they already stated they don't have indicates either confusion or obfuscation on your part. (It may be the former, given your stating more than once previously "Can rad grenades be used as a melee weapon? No. Therefore they cannot be unusual grenades. " in the thread despite the Unusual Grenades box specifically stating that unusual grenades are not used as a melee weapon.) Obviously, since they have already stated they don't have a profile, the "special rules" for an unusual grenade would be the rules listed for that grenade.
