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.

Hey, this question has come up before but when i read through them the answers changed from no to yes to duck. When a 6,6 is rolled for the shokk attack gun the rules state that the models are "removed from play". I stand by that this would include models immune from instant death however my friend thinks that... well the opposite of course and that merely one wound is conferred.
I took this to my FLGS and one staff member agreed and one disagreed, this seemed to cause a debate which lasted after I had left.
My friend will not take my word as I'm quite new to 40k so I've posted this to get opinions of more experienced players on the matter.
Please and thankyou.

The models are removed, not wounded.

6,6 does NOT cause Instant Death. It just removes models from play.

That's what i said, i think he is just too attached to his tau commander.

Instant Death is a very specific rule that happens in specific circumstances. The 66 reslt on the SAG isn't on of them though. You can go back to golf clapping while he removes his commander.

"Removed from play" is the new "slain outright" (from old FW and the current DH ones)

Instant Death is a rule invoked in specific circumstances, or when the weapon tells you to do so. If you don't invoke it, then you cannot be immune to it.

Simples.

Best thing to deal with necron.

Bye-bye

*Waves*

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Removed from play" is the new "slain outright" (from old FW and the current DH ones).

No, it's better. There's nothing about wounding or saves in the SAG description. Ofc needing a double six is a bit of a problem if anyone decides to use this for hunting nasty über-powerful ICs.

You still get a save. The weapon is ap 2 so only a cover save or invulnerable save is possible. But the wording that the model is removed from play does not mean the model is disallowed a save of some type.

However, I was not sure, and re-read "TAKE SAVING THROWS" on pg.20.

The first line reads "Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."

But interesting enough if you read further under INVULNERABLE SAVES same page you find that invulnerable saves are taken when wounded. So, RAW would stem someone to believe that Inv saves may only be taken by weapons that cause wounds...

But again, reading further on the next page (21) under the heading COVER SAVES we find that the description for cover saves does not require a wound as the inv save one does.

I honestly believe this means nothing. The author went literally back and forth on needing to be wounded or simply making a save to avoid being removed from play.

Either way, I believe the rules point toward a save can always be taken unless it is specifically spelled out by a power or weapon that that no save is possible (e.g. C-tan weapon).

If you are removed from play no wounds are caused, and you definitely can only take saves against wounds - for example you cannot "go to ground" to avoid lash as this is something that can only take place when you are wounded....

A save is initially defined as a way to avoid damage. All other saves are taken from that initial definition. Does 6,6 damage the model? NO it simply removes the model from play. Much like infernal gateway

If it keeps your friend happy, tell him his Tau commander is still alive and not 'instantly dead'...... he's just stuck in the warp somewhere......

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you are removed from play no wounds are caused, and you definitely can only take saves against wounds - for example you cannot "go to ground" to avoid lash as this is something that can only take place when you are wounded....

A save is initially defined as a way to avoid damage. All other saves are taken from that initial definition. Does 6,6 damage the model? NO it simply removes the model from play. Much like infernal gateway

I don't know what infernal gateway is but the rule for "GOING TO GROUND" on page 24 specifically says, "After the enemy has rolled to hit and wound against any of your units, but before you take any save or remove any models, you can declare that the unit is going to ground."

Going to ground specifically states the opposition needs to wound, so this is a bad example. But the first sentence I quoted earlier and if you read about cover saves, no wounds are needed, just simply the need to prevent removing a model as a casualty is.

I reckon thier not even removed from play.. thier just made all tiny like so grots have toys to play with.

Removed from play is removed from play. Its an ork rule so it should be taken in that context, if it sound whacky/odd - it was probably intended.

Padixon - it says to avoid the "damage" - how is damage indicated in 40k? by dealing wounds [vehicles generally gont have "saves" so I will duck that for now] - if you are removed from play WITHOUT damage being caused how can you take a save?

Infernal Gateway (WoC, Tzeentch no6 spell) is a fantasy spell with vairable Strength. On an 11 or 12 the "target unit is removed from play" - no saves may be taken as no wounds are caused. T his is the exact same situation.

To pose a question: Say you decide to take a save - against what have you saved? No wound has been caused to save against, and the effect "removed from play" is NOT negated by ssuccesfully making a save - this is only the case when "removed from play" is a result of dropping to 0 wounds (or ID, whcih this isn't)

Simply put: make all the saves you want: they simply have no bearing on the effect of 6,6

The easy thing to do is to give in to your friend a little. Tell him you'll be happy to play it so tha you BOTH get what you want... His commander receives only 1 wound... then is removed. LOL

Tell him to just do what the book says.

Eric

why do people try and argue against this?

remove from play is what its describes.
the model is gone, bye.
do you get saves? No, there was not any wounds caused.

Easy answer to that, JD...

Why do they try to argue against it? Because they don't want to lose and are willing to do whatever they have to NOT to.

Eric

Don't forget to claim your own save when you roll a 1, 1

Or just play it like the Codex says, meh

yea this sounds like a classic case of someone trying to hose a friend over to save their precious commander/hq


pick the model up, and keep playing

nosferatu1001 wrote:Padixon - it says to avoid the "damage" - how is damage indicated in 40k? by dealing wounds [vehicles generally gont have "saves" so I will duck that for now] - if you are removed from play WITHOUT damage being caused how can you take a save?

Infernal Gateway (WoC, Tzeentch no6 spell) is a fantasy spell with vairable Strength. On an 11 or 12 the "target unit is removed from play" - no saves may be taken as no wounds are caused. T his is the exact same situation.

To pose a question: Say you decide to take a save - against what have you saved? No wound has been caused to save against, and the effect "removed from play" is NOT negated by ssuccesfully making a save - this is only the case when "removed from play" is a result of dropping to 0 wounds (or ID, whcih this isn't)

Simply put: make all the saves you want: they simply have no bearing on the effect of 6,6

I read all over the shooting phase and more importantly the "TAKE SAVING THROWS" portion. And no where did I find any mention of damage being = to a wound. No where. With that said, there are plenty of times in which the author described making saves versus wounds...well all except for cover saves which according to it's own description requires no wounds.

But, I was thinking of any past relevance's to this subject. And the only one I can think of that uses nearly the same wording is the Commissar's execute type abilities. I don't own the new codex yet, but the old one had a "for your own good" rule and the more famous executing for cowardice one. Both these rules had the player remove the offending model with no way of saving them.

With all this data, I feel that you very well are right on this one. The only 'hic-up' I can think of, is if someone pull's out the RB and starts reading about taking cover saves on page 21. However, because of the precedence already set up by the IG rule and a similar DA rule (mind worm) I would feel that no save is possible. Again, if someone wanted to fight it, cover saves do not need wounds. In fact the rule does not even use the word 'damage' but the exact phrase "...avoid harm". Clearly anyone can define avoiding harm as simply anything that would do harm which most certainly would include a black hole thing the shok attack gun can do.

I understand that 'saves' may only be taken against wounds, and there may well have been a line that said this in an older version of this game (I don't remember, but have heard the phrase though). But this current edition unfortunately has no such line that spells this out.
At least one that I have found.

Again, I do concede and do follow your line of logic. Just be sure, it is not 100% supported by the RB, specifically in cover saves.

Fine - so you make a cover save and stop the damage. However you arent being damaged - you're being removed from play. so you can roll the dice but it makes no difference iether way.

The only thing you can "save" against is taking a wound, as this is the only damage that is represented. While they dont specifically state damage == wound, they dont need to - that is positivism and just doesnt work. Standard language tells you that, given a set of stats (BS, WS, etc) the only one that represents physical damage IN GW USAGE is the "Wound" stat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fine - so you make a cover save and stop the damage. However you arent being damaged - you're being removed from play. so you can roll the dice but it makes no difference iether way.

The only thing you can "save" against is taking a wound, as this is the only damage that is represented. While they dont specifically state damage == wound, they dont need to - that is positivism and just doesnt work. Standard language tells you that, given a set of stats (BS, WS, etc) the only one that represents physical damage IN GW USAGE is the "Wound" stat.

lol. I do believe we are on different planes of discussion here.

What you are trying to do is discuss your interpretation of what 'damage' and 'harm' is. Which as you know, is open to interpretation because neither one is spelled out in the RB.

What I am trying to do is show everyone what the rules *actually* say. I do not wish to discuss interpretation because it is a round-a-bout discussion.

Also, you may note, that I do in fact agree with you. However I simply want to point out that the rules for cover saves in general do not support your/my side of the argument with absolute certainty. I can not honestly look someone in the eye after reading the cover save rule from the book and say with conviction that no cover save is allowed. But, I would bring up the precedence's set and the logic in why that makes sense.

I am agreeing with you out of retrospect to the precedence made by other rules with the same wording...all of which (it is played by the vast majority of players) that the model is simply removed from play.

I am not one for blindly following RAW, because often times they can create a situation that is unclear (cover saves vs. this weapon is a great example).

The cover saves rules cannot cover wounds only, as they apply to vehicles as well.

However, you still havent answered WHAT you think you are saving against? You arent told you can make a save against it via cover, so you cant....

"from harm" as quoted by the cover saves is what you would save against (which again would determine on what someone's interpretation to "harm" is, yours for example harm = wounds, someone might consider "harm" anything that would cause the model to be a casualty). I apologize, but I thought this was covered already.

And nothing "says" you may make a cover save. Because the rule itself (cover save rule) says you may make a save unless you are told you can't. And unfortunately this rule does not say you don't get a cover save (e.g. is Template weapons and Str D weapons that specifically say you get no cover save). If there is no caveat, then a cover save is indeed allowed.

But again, this isn't about interpretation, as that would rely on the reader and change from person to person. What I bring is what the RB says on the subject and that is all.

Well I used it today and my friend had no problem this time and i took out 8 models... unfortunately they were mine, double 1 on the first turn... epic fail lol. Thanks everyone for helping clear that up.

The closest similar weapon to this that I can find is in the eldar arsenal, the wraith cannon and the distort cannon. Both of these weapons say that on a 6 they transport the target to the warp, but they also use the phrase *instant death*. So while the weapon seems to be very similar the rules wording is indeed quite different.


Both the eldar and orc codex were written by Phil Kelly, so there is some continuity there.

Since the eldar codex predates the current rule set, and the orc codex is more recent its possible that the wording was changed intentionally to make the effect more powerful in 5th edition.... or its quite possible that Phil just blew off using the words instant death, heh.

If the orc weapon is supposed to have the same effect as the eldar weapon then it would indeed allow saves in some cases, but the two rules dont read the same so its quite possible the idea behind the weapon has changed and we may see a diff rule in the next eldar codex.

So while this info may be interesting, Im afraid on deeper consdieration it doesnt really help clear things up at all.


Sliggoth

IMHO if you roll a 6,6, you can tell your opponent to just pick up any model touched by the blast marker and put them away right then and there with no way to be saved. How does cover, a force field or anything else stop a miniature blackhole from sucking up your men into the warp (sorry for bringing Fluff into this)?




-Orkishly

I don't wanna be that guy that says the same thing as everyone else, so I am going to change the threads direction a little bit. I play 'nids, but my buddy plays orcs and has always played that when a roll of 5,5 (Zoink) is rolled that the figure moves into base to base contact with the figure it was targeting (like he rules state), but he then plays that because he moved into base to base contact that his shooting phase is automatically over and that he must assault with his figures. Maybe it is because I am nice, but the way that I read it is that his turn is done until the assault phase and because of his accident, he initiates the assault during the phase. Is this how its supposed to be?

All that happens is he is moved into BTB, as an exception to the normal shooting rules. It does not stop the rest of his army shooting.

Thanks, that is what I thought, but I just cannot seem to convince him of that. I guess if he wants to play that way I'll let him, but I feel kinda bad as I feel I'm cheating him out of attacks.