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

Do you get one?

says immediately remove all models under the template from play - could be interpreted as no cover save, but i imagine this would be challenged.

what do you guys think?

did you take a wound? No, so what are you taking a save against?

Tri wrote:did you take a wound? No, so what are you taking a save against?

works for me

No wound = no save, same with markerlights

On a related note, I've taken out a nercon lord and attached immortal unit in one shot with those lovely double 6's! Also take an ammo grot so you can reroll that scatter dice when you need to.

juraigamer wrote:No wound = no save, same with markerlights

On a related note, I've taken out a nercon lord and attached immortal unit in one shot with those lovely double 6's! Also take an ammo grot so you can reroll that scatter dice when you need to.

wow an ammo grot, you know it never even occurred to me that you could do that, its a good idea! i have also had some pretty lethal double 6s, the cover thing had never come up to date so it was a pre-emtive question because i just field it all the time now.

thanks for the answers

Yeah, anything that "removes a model from play" ignores all saves. All of them, no armour, cover, inv, fnp or wbb.

Heh

double sixes are nice, but the only time i ever got one the scatter parked the shot on top of my warboss... Hilarious for the Mek, not so much for the warboss...

So yeah, take an ammo grot! I was kicking myself for being stingy that time..

Agree with all others. They are removed from table after hit. If you get one...

Jone96 wrote:Agree with all others. They are removed from table after hit. If you get one...

With exception, of course, to vehicles, who do in fact get a cover save if they have one, as they're special.

Oh, and just pointing out, if you roll the dreaded , your vehicles aren't auto-penetrated, they're GONE. So be careful!

My Big Mek scarred me for life with .

AlmightyWalrus wrote:With exception, of course, to vehicles, who do in fact get a cover save if they have one,

Pray tell?

You mean if they do not receive a glancing or penetrating hit they do get a cover save?
I must be missing something.

Automatic penetrating hit, i believe, instead of removed from play, hence cover save..

I don't have my codex on me, so could another Ork back me up?

The double 6's doesn't remove a vehicle, instead it causes a single pen hit on the vehicle caused by the template.

Thanks

Vehicles are still a models, they are still removed from play.

Yes, vehicles are still models:

The text from the codex is:



6, 6 - Raagh

*fluff text*

... Any model hit bu the gun this turn is removed from play. Vehicles hit take an automatic penetrating hit.'

You could RAW lawyer that they take an automatic penetrating hit and are also removed from play (but why? the RAI is pretty clear).


Practical upshot is that if you are a vehicle you just got penetrated. If not you are history

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
With exception, of course, to vehicles, who do in fact get a cover save if they have one, as they're special.

Oh, and just pointing out, if you roll the dreaded , your vehicles aren't auto-penetrated, they're GONE. So be careful!

Vehicles are still a models, they are still removed from play - there's no differance between the wording of the remove from play, vehicles do take that penetrating hit however, which might make them explode which might hit things not under the template.

Why would having an additional effect suddenly mean we ignore the other one?

I was referring to the 6,6 result. It specifically says that vehicles take a penetrating hit. As it specifically says what happens to the vehicle (it takes a penetrating hit) and doesn't say 'vehicles ALSO take a penetrating hit' it's pretty clear what the intent was. You can RAW-wrangle it if you want, and best of luck to you (in a logic debate i'd agree the wording isn't legally sufficient (ie cut and dried with no room for interpretation) but in play (yes i know, not a RAW argument, but a statement of how it would work in-play) you'd be hard put to find a single player who had read the ork codex who'd allow you to pull something like that.

The 1,1 result you quoted does not have the text saying that the vehicle takes a penetrating hit, just that all models within range of the effect are removed so vehicles are removed on a 1,1 result. That result is legally sufficient.

Yes exactly, both use 'removed models from under the template from play.' With the colon at the end we then go onto another sentence which details a specific effect from vehicles under the template. It's possible to perform both actions (pen hit and remove from play) without breaking the rules, if one however just applies the pen then you have ignored a rule - because you didn't like it. What about if one applies the hit? The vehicle could explode - and hurt things near it, it could be wrecked and the passengers might have a chance to get out instead of going *poof* the point is, having another sentence in a rule, which makes no reference to prior parts of the rule and then using this to ignore an effect which one had no problem applying before smacks of “Oh I don’t like this, it works this way now.”

If it's immediately removed from play then it's not around to take the Pen. If the vehicle is instantly removed from play there is no hope of disembarkation or explosion. It just ceases to be, instantly.

I did make the point that my opinion was an 'as it would be played' interpretation (as stipulated in the Tenets of YMDC sticky). My RAW interpretation was more or less in line with yours, not opposed, but I was talking RAI not RAW.

I play orks. I would love to be able to just magically remove monoliths from play, but i just don't believe this is what was intended, due to the reference to vehicles having a seperate effect.

Its not that I don't like the RAW interpretation that you are espousing, from a 'me winning games' perspective. I just don't believe that is what the RAI is. I don't pretend to have a direct link into Phil Kelly's mind (thank gods...), but no-one i've asked yet outside of a rules debate forum that slants heavily towards the literal RAW (whether or not it makes sense) has interpreted it that way.

If they FAQ it as that i'll be quite happy to use it, but I don't think they will.

(ruling on all three local tourneys i've been to is that vehicles take an autopen only, but that's neither here nor there. I'd not try to insist on the version you're arguing , right or not, but feel free to try to yourself )

Ascalam wrote:If it's immediately removed from play then it's not around to take the Pen. If the vehicle is instantly removed from play there is no hope of disembarkation or explosion. It just ceases to be, instantly.
I did make the point that my opinion was an 'as it would be played' interpretation (as stipulated in the Tenets of YMDC sticky). My RAW interpretation was more or less in line with yours, not opposed, but I was talking RAI not RAW.
I play orks. I would love to be able to just magically remove monoliths from play, but i just don't believe this is what was intended, due to the reference to vehicles having a seperate effect.
Its not that I don't like the RAW interpretation that you are espousing, from a 'me winning games' perspective. I just don't believe that is what the RAI is. I don't pretend to have a direct link into Phil Kelly's mind (thank gods...), but no-one i've asked yet outside of a rules debate forum that slants heavily towards the literal RAW (whether or not it makes sense) has interpreted it that way.
If they FAQ it as that i'll be quite happy to use it, but I don't think they will.
(ruling on all three local tourneys i've been to is that vehicles take an autopen only, but that's neither here nor there. I'd not try to insist on the version you're arguing , right or not, but feel free to try to yourself )

How are 'any model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play.Vehicles take a penetrating hit' mutually exclusive? Does removing a model from play somehow make one forget how to roll on the damage table? In fact why aren't your vehicles taking a penetrating hit? And all of theirs?

RAI all models hit by the template are removed from play. Vehicles take a penetrating hit. Not vehicles under or hit by the template, just vehicels, all of them your theirs - take a penetrating hit.

I agree with ChrisCP.

Also the fact that you (Ascalam) say this is rules lawyering is completely wrong it EXPLICITLY states that any MODELS under the template is removed from play.

Vehicles are removed and take a pen. It states this, there is no question or debate, they are removed. When it comes to tournies the decision is entirely with the TO, however if they say it just takes a pen they are wrong.

Sorry, but "All Models under the template are removed from play" means that ALL models under the template are removed. gone. goodbye. zip. kablooie. bang. fizzle. Gone.

Sorry to sound like such a jerk, i am normally not like this, but saying that they only suffer a pen is wrong atleast until they FAQ this. RAW is very very very very very very clear in this situation.

'Does removing a model from play somehow make one forget how to roll on the damage table? In fact why aren't your vehicles taking a penetrating hit? And all of theirs? '

This would be a hyperbolic rhetorical question, so I won't deign to rise to it.


'RAI all models hit by the template are removed from play. Vehicles take a penetrating hit. Not vehicles under or hit by the template, just vehicels, all of them your theirs - take a penetrating hit. '

You seem a little too fond of hyperbole. That would be a RAW interpretation taken with no regard to RAI or common sense. Well done!

I gave you a How I Would Play It argument , and you keep trying to argue a RAW argument (which is against the tenets i might point out.) . The game isn't just about RAW taken to an extreme that ignores gameplay or common sense. The tenets forbid me to bring up the rule stating this, so I won't, but do you REALLY, honestly think that all vehicles would be hit by this effect across the battlefield?

If your answer is yes, then i pity you. You are obviously a WAAC player with no regard for the game. My guess, however, is you were trying to use hyperbole to sound authoratative and drive home your intellectual superiority...

If your answer is no then could we please keep this to a rational, logical and as far as possible unemotional discussion of the rules and how they would be played out? Its hard to take the moral highground of the rules as being a logical progression of definitions if you're ranting.

I gave you my interpretation of the rule, and the fact that everyone i have ever played against, at any venue has played this way. I don't say we're right, from a logic stance, just that that's the way it seems to be played.


I've agreed (and already stated that i did ) from a RAW perspective that it would possible to infer that the vehicle gets penetrated and vanishes simultaneously. Please stop flogging the dead RAW horse. It won't change my mind.

I've disagreed with this argument on a 'how it would actually play out' perspective (Not RAW, but HWYPI), and given my reasons why. Feel free to disagree. I don't mind or particularly care.

My question: How would you actually play this situation in game, say at a tournament?

Ascalam wrote:I gave you my interpretation of the rule, and the fact that everyone i have ever played against, at any venue has played this way. I don't say we're right, from a logic stance, just that that's the way it seems to be played.

I m sorry, but your RAI may be very different from other's RAI. Everyone MAY (or may not) interpret the intention differently. I prefer to stick to RAW - at least I have something black and white to back me up.
And I don't understand how by sticking STRICTLY to RAW, one is being a WAAC player.

You speak of logic, but so far all your logic bemuses me.

Ascalam wrote:you'd be hard put to find a single player who had read the ork codex who'd allow you to pull something like that.

There is already a handful here in this thread

At a tournament i would show the section to a player, if they disagree, i will take it to a TO i will show them the section, if they disagree i will accept this, because tournaments play to different rules to 40K.

Okay we get it, you know the tenets of YMDC congrats .

I am not a WAAC player by any means, and go ahead, play the rule like that, you are still wrong. An Explicit statement shouldnt be ignored unless it is a tournament (see a few sentences above).

Sorry, guilty as charged, i am ranting but I do not by any means play a RAW such as saying a wraithlord cannot see anything, because it has no eyes (you check los from the models eyes) i do not do any of these things.

If you agree with me/ ChrisCP about the RAW then can we stop having this "discussion". " The game isn't just about RAW taken to an extreme that ignores gameplay or common sense" < Alacram Common sense dictates that the giant tear in space that is sucking everything would not stop because of your tank. Jokes aside, this isnt "taking RAW to the extreme" nothing like it, its an explicit statement that is correct, play this however you want, i hope you enjoy your games of warhammer i truly truly do. Because you play this differently doesnt make you right.


TLR You are wrong. My HWYPU argument, is the tank is removed from play, and suffers a pen. Before you re-state what you said before, just because a model is removed from play doesnt mean you get to ignore the other results applied, all shooting happens at the same time. Its like something get wrecked by glances, then not letting your opponent roll the pens because the model is already destroyed.

TBH, now that I think about it, Chris is right. Had it said that "vehicles instead take a pen. hit" (as I thought it did) it would've worked as I thought. Still, you DO get cover against the pen!

You obviously didn't bother to read my post too deeply, barring a couple of buzzwords. I don't recall using the term Rules Lawyer either? I uses Raw-lawyer in the theoretical sense (you could raw-lawyer (as a verb))m but not specifically called anyone a Rules Lawyer, I prefer RAW-Wrangler (one who wrangles, or discusses, RAW).

The comment on Raw being taken to the extreme and being a WAAC referred specifically to the earlier comment that all vehicles on the board would be hit, which was an asshat hyperbole to attempt to back his point. You could at least have done me the courtesy of reading my post properly.

@ Stridex- My logic is that as vehicles are mentioned as a seperate category they are affected differently on a 6,6 result. It can be read either way by RAW, but let's not get the vitriol flowing again.

Raw is not the only valid thing in a rules discussion, regardless of whether you think it should be-

From the Tenets discussion:

'What I have been increasingly seeing in YMDC is a preponderance of situations where the RAW is unclear or meaningless. This almost always leads to both sides claiming that they have a RAW arguement, when both sides are rather inducing from intent or interpretation (in otherwards, a RAI arguement). I believe this is largely because the current YMDC elites have made a misinformed decision that RAI has no place in discussing legal arguements, something that would be laughable in any other area of law. Therefore, to make thier stance sound more official, they incorrectly label it as a RAW stance...which again, can often be impossible because the strict RAW has no clear meaning or no-meaning at all.

I think that a more informed discussion would reconize that there are both good and bad RAI arguements, just as thier are both good and bad RAW arguements. And that at times, a RAI arguement will be superior to a RAW arguement.

Moreover, I think alot of headway would be made by acknowledging that RAW arguements only work when the rule are written clearly and concisely. By acknowledging cases where RAW arguements cannot be used we can then focus instead on best intent, which would be much more constructive. '

If i'm wrong i'm wrong, as are every other player that has run into or used a shokk attack gun within my gaming radius. Fair enough.

I also didn't state that my take on RAI must be the only one. It happens to be mine. I'll not change it. If you think i'm wrong, fine by me. Just don't attempt to cram your opinion down my throat as being the only way it can be on an ambiguous entry. (yes i know YOU don't think it ambiguous, but apparently not everyone agrees with you , hence- ambiguous). It CAN be interpreted that way via RAW. Doesn't mean it's correct. We may never know what is 'correct'. I've already conceded that from a pure RAW perspective you have a possiblly valid argument. We can agree to disagree on whether it's the only one.

'Because you play this differently doesnt make you right. '
Right back at you. *shrug*

My question was how you would actually put this into use on a gaming table.

Takieno- Thankyou for your input on that. Seems a reasonable way to go about it. What is the usual reponse from the player or TO?

First off i apologise if i came off as shoving my opinion down anyones throat, i can get a little like that.

I would love to tell you the response, but i dont run a big mek with SAG so it has never come up >.< however, most of my logic comes from my local GW store manager, who i have known for going on 7 years now, he strongly believes in RAW to an extent, for eg, the wraithlord scenario i brought up earlier, he would chew off anyones head if they tried it. But in this situation with a statement that manages to be very clear as well as extremely vague at the same time.

Also my apologies for saying you accused somone of Rules Lawyering, that was a mistake on my behalf.

"'Because you play this differently doesnt make you right. '
Right back at you. *shrug* "

Touche Also i do apologise about the misunderstanding to do with your WAAC to the MAACKs (see what i did thar?) accusation, i dont see how it could even be enterpreted to mean every vehicle is removed from play by a blind deaf commatosed monkey that just a lobotomy done by a three year old with tools made out of playdo.

'i dont see how it could even be enterpreted to mean every vehicle is removed from play by a blind deaf commatosed monkey that just a lobotomy done by a three year old with tools made out of playdo. '


What an image you present there... Modelling opportunity i think

Your local GW rep sounds better than the one I grew up gaming around, at least.

Mine, before I moved overseas, would break off any part of a conversion that wasn't recognisable by him as 'GW stuff'.

No warning either:

SNAP

'What the..'

'Now it's legal.'



Anyone else have any experience actually running a SAG Mek who actually rolls 6,6 (rare as gork for me), and the ruling that came up? Not the logic, but the actual experience, for preference, since apparently my logic-fu is weak

Ascalam wrote:@ Stridex- My logic is that as vehicles are mentioned as a seperate category they are affected differently on a 6,6 result. It can be read either way by RAW, but let's not get the vitriol flowing again.

They are not to be treated separately or differently. They just suffer TWO results.

1) You remove the vehicle from the game.
2) You roll a D6 for damage table results. If you roll a SIX, roll a D6 to determine the explosion radius.

The RAW is CLEAR, it is not VAGUE here. You do TWO things.

If RAW is CLEAR, then there IS A RIGHT ANSWER. It's not a matter of interpretation

Of course, you are free to play it the way you THINK is correct among your friends, just like I can always tell my best pal we play that my ork boys have initiative 10 and S20. It works the same way

Hei btw, I m also not shoving my opinion down your throat. It's your models, you own them. Play the game the way you want !