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.

The discussion in the tactic forum made me wonder about some RAW/RAI issues with the Shokk Attack Gun.

Under the results for rolling a double 6 for str, the codex says "Any model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play. Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit."

It seems obvious that vehicles take a penetrating hit, but vehicles are also models that were hit by the SAG - so should they be removed from play?

It seems that in some of the rules, GW seems to imply that 'model' means non-vehicle model...

well, I think they should be removed from play since that is RAW. I would say they stipulate "takes an automatic penetrating hit" because it could explode and damage other things

then again, this isn't covered at all in the ork faq. (what else is new)

who knows?

NaZ

Traskel wrote:
It seems that in some of the rules, GW seems to imply that 'model' means non-vehicle model...

That was actually the way the rules were written in 3rd edition, that "model" meant "non-vehicle model". I think sometimes GW gets lazy and still reverts to that nomenclature.

So yeah, by the RAW it doesn't really make sense, but I think the intent is pretty clear that non-vehicle models are removed from play and vehicles instead suffer a penetrating hit.

Vehicles needn't be removed,and would suffer penetration.

"Vehicles are models"?Are terrain "models"?

In 40K rulebook,the word "models" refers to the ones who has their characteristics.

yakface wrote:

Traskel wrote:
It seems that in some of the rules, GW seems to imply that 'model' means non-vehicle model...

That was actually the way the rules were written in 3rd edition, that "model" meant "non-vehicle model". I think sometimes GW gets lazy and still reverts to that nomenclature.

So yeah, by the RAW it doesn't really make sense, but I think the intent is pretty clear that non-vehicle models are removed from play and vehicles instead suffer a penetrating hit.

How about the miniatures without a profile,like bomb squigs?If they were hit by double-6-SAG....

tokugawa wrote:Vehicles needn't be removed,and would suffer penetration.

"Vehicles are models"?Are terrain "models"?

In 40K rulebook,the word "models" refers to the ones who has their characteristics.

Terrain is not a model. A model in 40K, as you reference, is defined on page 5 rulebook and is a model with characteristics. So yes, a vehicle is indeed a "model" per the rules.

tokugawa wrote:

How about the miniatures without a profile,like bomb squigs?If they were hit by double-6-SAG....

As described on page 31 of the Ork codex, Bomb Squigs (and other Ork models w/o a statline) are purely decorative and therefore are not directly affected by anything in the game.

so technically we could argue that a land raider hit by a double 6 SAG hit is removed from the game

the penetrating hit would give the passengers an opportunity to disembark I guess under this interpretation, and potentially wound nearby infantry if they are hit by an explosion.

but under this interpretation, if they didn't get out, they would be removed as well

hmph. yet another ork issue that needs to be FAQ'd.

NaZ

NaZ wrote:so technically we could argue that a land raider hit by a double 6 SAG hit is removed from the game

the penetrating hit would give the passengers an opportunity to disembark I guess under this interpretation, and potentially wound nearby infantry if they are hit by an explosion.

but under this interpretation, if they didn't get out, they would be removed as well

hmph. yet another ork issue that needs to be FAQ'd.

NaZ

How would you argue that? The models in the vehicle are not hit, the vehicle is. The passengers would follow the normal rules.

by the understanding that models in transports are "on the table"

if for some reason the vehicle were removed from play and the passengers never had an opportunity to disembark, why would they still be in play?

now I'm not arguing for this kind of ruling. I think it is stupid and rediculous

but then again, this is entirely due to the BAD edititing on GW's part. the SAG should read:

"any non-vehicle model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play. Vehicles take an automatic penetetrating hit."

that would clear the issue up entirely.

since under the definition of a "model" vehicles are "models" then it is currently (unfortunately) totally reasonable to say that a vehicle hit by the SAG is a model that should be removed from the game.

and further, the penetrating hit is actually to the advantage of the defending player, in the hopes that the vehicle is destroyed or explodes before it can be removed, allowing the infantry to disembark before the thing is sucked into the warp.

I don't play APOC, but the 6,6 result seems to behave like a vortex grenade. how does a vortex grenade work with vehicles? with transports?

once again, I don't agree with this ruling. but if there is any event where RAW really matters, its ard boyz. and since I'm going to the semis, it doesn't hurt to be educated on this kind of nonsense.

the number of issues with the ork codex are piling up. we need rulings on:

ram/deffrolla
snikrot/zaggstruck/badruk and model count
gretchin/runtherd issue
shock attack gun

I'm sure there is more, I just haven't dug deep enough yet. but that constitues a number of issues that need to be fixed (preferably before the semis but that is not realistic

NaZ

I'm not sure I'd even entertain a technical argument on this one.

Even legal statutes and contracts are interpreted under the assumption that the reader exercises a bit of common sense. If there are two different effects, one for "models" the other for "vehicles" then it's strange to assume that a because another section technically includes vehicles in the definition for models, that the SAG 66 rule really means the exact opposite of what it's saying, i.e., to treat both vehicles and non-vehicle models the same, rather than differently.

misterheavy wrote:I'm not sure I'd even entertain a technical argument on this one.

Even legal statutes and contracts are interpreted under the assumption that the reader exercises a bit of common sense. If there are two different effects, one for "models" the other for "vehicles" then it's strange to assume that a because another section technically includes vehicles in the definition for models, that the SAG 66 rule really means the exact opposite of what it's saying, i.e., to treat both vehicles and non-vehicle models the same, rather than differently.

I think you're being biased by the actual effects applied in the rules.

The rules are in the form:

Any model hit by the SAG has effect A occur.
All vehicles automatically have effect B occur.

By RAW, vehicles should have effects A and B occur, and all other models should have effect A occur. I think the reason this doesn't make sense, is because of the actual effects that take place. If effect A were 'takes a str 10 hit', and effect B were 'has a crew stunned effect applied', then I don't think you would find a person who would actually argue with the RAW. Just because the actual effects that result from the rules don't make the most sense with the wording, doesn't mean they shouldn't be applied due to 'common sense'. A vehicle is a type of model, so it should be common sense that effect A would apply to it by RAW.

yeah.. I called gw and they said it doesnt work, but at the same time said any result on that chart doesnt scatter (which is wrong)

so yeah.. lets hope for a FAQ on this one in addition to all the other ork mess

NaZ

I won't be removing my vehicles if they're hit by a shokk attack gun, but I'll gladly let my opponent roll on the penetrating hit table.

Seems straightforward to me. And I won't be taken advantage of by creative semantics.

Traskel wrote:

misterheavy wrote:I'm not sure I'd even entertain a technical argument on this one.

Even legal statutes and contracts are interpreted under the assumption that the reader exercises a bit of common sense. If there are two different effects, one for "models" the other for "vehicles" then it's strange to assume that a because another section technically includes vehicles in the definition for models, that the SAG 66 rule really means the exact opposite of what it's saying, i.e., to treat both vehicles and non-vehicle models the same, rather than differently.

I think you're being biased by the actual effects applied in the rules.

The rules are in the form:

Any model hit by the SAG has effect A occur.
All vehicles automatically have effect B occur.

By RAW, vehicles should have effects A and B occur, and all other models should have effect A occur. I think the reason this doesn't make sense, is because of the actual effects that take place. If effect A were 'takes a str 10 hit', and effect B were 'has a crew stunned effect applied', then I don't think you would find a person who would actually argue with the RAW. Just because the actual effects that result from the rules don't make the most sense with the wording, doesn't mean they shouldn't be applied due to 'common sense'. A vehicle is a type of model, so it should be common sense that effect A would apply to it by RAW.

well yeah, I don't think it's possible to apply the rules in any common sense way without looking at the effects. Applying both A and B is functionally the same as just applying A since a penetrating hit is meaningless if the model is simply removed. My point was that the rule would not bother specifying different effects for models & vehicles (treat them differently) if the rule's functional purpose was to simply remove whatever "model" was touched (treating them the same).

Still, i think we're getting at pretty much the same piont.