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.

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And granades

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SaintHazard wrote:

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

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

Now I'm even more confused.

Best part imo was whole discussion about squares and rectangles

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

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

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

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

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

Oshova

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

Oshova

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

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

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

Humans are the only ones with actual eyes!

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

So no eyes, no los, no firing

But ofc, who plays that way

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

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

In the last few days he has told me:

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

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

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

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

"AP-" weapons do have an AP value

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

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

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

Oshova

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

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

So you've never read his FAQs, then?

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

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

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

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

Hilarious.

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

Hilarious.

That's what he's saying, yeah.

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

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

It gets tiresome.

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

Hilarious.

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

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

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

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

It gets tiresome.

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

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

SmackCakes wrote:

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

Hilarious.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

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

SaintHazard wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:

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

Hilarious.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be why they're called "rules" rather than "suggestions."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As exceptions to the rules that say you can.

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

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

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

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

SmackCakes wrote:outside assault etc...

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

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

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

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

Which is absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

And you call me absurd...

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

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