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.

If that is so why does 5,6 get to be special? If we have to follow the scatter rule why not for 5,6? Again it just doesn't make sense. 1,1 says no shot fired, mek dead - no scatter, 2,2 says your opponent gets to place the template - yea or nay for scatter, 3,3 place template on nearest to target - again yea or nay, 4,4 use small template - yea or nay, 5,5 mek fired into an assault with target - can't scatter, 5,6 only model under hole in template hit - scatter? How?, 6,6 remove all models unless vehicle then pen. hit - yea or nay for scatter. 3,3 & 4,4 both say to resolve attack upon target, however 2,2 does not. 5,5 tells us to assault, 5,6 & 6,6 tell us which models are hit or remove. This seems to tell us what is happening, who gets hit and how to resolve the shot with the exception of 2,2.

if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.

budro wrote:Phil Kellly told me at Baltimore Games Day that you do not roll for scatter after rolling on the mishap table. I was very clear in my question and he was very clear in his answer.

No, you only do what the chart tells you to do and nothing else. No rolling for scatter.

But since that's only word of mouth, cest la vie...

I'm emailing GW to ask them. If Phil Kelly says it doesn't then I would tend to believe him. I hope to hear from them within a week, and I'll post the reply.

I have sent the same question. Thanks!

usernamesareannoying wrote:if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.

I'm glad you have decreed it to be so. Unfortunately the rules do not back up your claim in any way, shape or form.

yakface wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.

I'm glad you have decreed it to be so. Unfortunately the rules do not back up your claim in any way, shape or form.

usernamesareannoying's statement was no less categorical than your pronouncements. And specifically with the bzzap result the rules do back him up in some way, shape, or form.

Webbe wrote:I agree with Yak.

Still the 5, 6 result is troublesome. It says "the model under the template hole is hit", not any model or something similar.
If it scatters there can very well be two models under the template hole, the rules say nothing about that.
This seem to indicate that a 5, 6 result is not meant to scatter.

This is a great point Webbe. It strongly suggests that bzzaps does not scatter. "The model"...only when the template is placed before the scatter is there the exclusive possibility that one model will be under the hole. So if the bzzap does indeed scatter what happens if two models are partially under the hole?

There is definitely inconsistent word usage across the entries. The Main rule for the gun presents the ordering of events. "Roll 2D6 to determine its strength after placing the template but before rolling scatter dice. If a double... consult the chart below."

So the default sequence is:

1. Place large blast template.
2. Roll 2D6 for Strength.
2.a. Check chart for rolling doubles.
3. Roll Scatter dice.
4. Continue with shooting as normal (roll to wound, apply saves, remove casualties).

It stands to reason that by consulting the chart below we *might* find exceptions to this default sequence.

2,2 states "the opponent may choose the target of the shokk attack gun this turn." Says nothing about altering the rest of the shooting sequence.

3,3 says "resolve this shot...", likewise 4,4 uses "resolve the attack upon the target, but use the small template." This is specifically emphasizing that you follow the ordinary shooting sequence.

6,6 says "any model hit by the gun..." and so says nothing about altering the normal shooting sequence.

Those are all inconsistent wordings that all seem to agree with the idea that you will still be rolling to hit (i.e.:scatter) after placing the template just as normal. Why they add special emphasis to 3,3 and 4,4 is something I don't understand.

5,6 is a different beast, though. It says "Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is strength 10." It doesn't say that the model under the template after it scatters is hit, it says "the model under the template is hit." I read this as saying that you get a hit on the model you placed under the hole. You have gotten this hit as part of 2.a. in the sequence, before you even get to 3. There's nothing to roll scatter for, then, just like there's nothing to roll scatter for when you don't take a shot (as in 1,1 and 5,5).

I dunno, I can see the other side, but it doesn't seem to follow the workflow as set up by the main rule for the gun.

olympia wrote:

yakface wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:if you roll a double or an 11 you go to the chart and resolve the shot there, there is no scatter.

I'm glad you have decreed it to be so. Unfortunately the rules do not back up your claim in any way, shape or form.

usernamesareannoying's statement was no less categorical than your pronouncements. And specifically with the bzzap result the rules do back him up in some way, shape, or form.

That is completely untrue. I've explained in a logical way several times now how the rules support my position. He did not.


I'll state the argument yet again which has yet to be refuted:


The Shokk Attack Gun is a shooting weapon and shooting weapons follow the normal steps for shooting (including rolling to hit) unless specified otherwise.

Nothing in the 5,6 result for the SAG specifically says that no 'to hit' roll is made, therefore since it is possible to resolve the 5,6 misfire result while still following the normal rules for shooting (including the 'to hit' roll), then we must.

Nonsense.




You are not normally this blindly dogmatic.... also not usually this obviously wrong.

It took me a lot of reading to see how anyone could argue that any of the table results scatter. I can now see that but the same argument must result in 5,6 not scattering.

After rolling a table result, you return to the usual shooting rules at an appropriate point.

Shooting rules require you to scatter in order to find out who is hit.

5,6 tells you who is hit. Therefore the appropriate point to return to the usual shooting rules is the bit where you roll to wound. You already know who is hit as the table has already told you.

Therefore it is wrong to scatter a 5,6 result.

yakface wrote:

That is completely untrue. I've explained in a logical way several times now how the rules support my position. He did not.


I'll state the argument yet again which has yet to be refuted:


The Shokk Attack Gun is a shooting weapon and shooting weapons follow the normal steps for shooting (including rolling to hit) unless specified otherwise.

Nothing in the 5,6 result for the SAG specifically says that no 'to hit' roll is made, therefore since it is possible to resolve the 5,6 misfire result while still following the normal rules for shooting (including the 'to hit' roll), then we must.

I would say that your position as applied to bzzap is refutable. It is not possible to resolve the bzzap result as you describe if you scatter and the template hole partially covers two models. Thus the bzzap result meets both of your conditions: 1) it specifies otherwise by telling you "only the model under the temlpate hole is hit"--although the language here is not as clear as we would hope and 2) if scattered it potentially leads to a result that cannot be resolved using the normal rules for shooting--the mishap tells you one model is hit but the scatter hits two models.

...

Well I discussed this running debate with my vindicator friend and we have come to this conclusion. I will also lay this out in a logical way, with due respect to Yakface, and see what everyone thinks. The brb does lay out the rules for shooting and they are to be followed. The codex lays out the special rules for each race and as such they change some rules in the brb. If this was not the case then you couldn't have Space Wolf Leman Russes nor Blood Angel Death Company nor Necron We'll Be Back. The SAG follows all brb shooting rules unless you roll doubles or 5,6 then you must, and I quote, "Consult the chart below." Yakface says that no where does it say not to follow the scatter rule but in fact it does, here is how. 1,1 says "no shot fired" in the description. no shot - no scatter, this seems a no brainer. 2,2 states the opponent may choose the target. The word target does not imply wounding and as such you must decide who gets hit - i.e. roll for scatter. 3,3 & 4,4 state "resolve this shot" - meaning go back to the brb and roll for scatter. 5,5 says the same as 1,1 no shot is fired. 5,6 tells us the model under the hole is hit - no scatter because we are told already who is hit. 6,6 tells us "any model hit". we don't know who is hit and therefore must roll for scatter. We only not roll for scatter when we have been instructed not - "not shot fired" & "only the model under the template hole is hit". In all others we are either told to resolve the shot or find out who was hit. I think this is in the spirit of the codex and the logical interpretation of the chart.

?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.

no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).

for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"

Tri wrote:?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.

no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).

for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"

It doesn't have to say the template doesn't scatter because it has already told us who is hit, before there is ever a chance to scatter. The text takes effect in between targeting and rolling to scatter, not after scattering.

I'm not sure what there is to debate about "only the model under the template hole is hit". This is a straight forward statement. You cannot scatter as you are already told who was hit with the blast. It does not state "resolve the shot" nor does it say anything about choosing a target or any model hit. Your argument does not follow a logical pattern. You cannot say 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is mortal 3. Therefore Socrates is a man. That is your argument. The fact that you are told who is hit superceeds any other rules to find who was hit. Think of it as a str 10 attack on a toughness 4 model. There is no saving throw as the attack is twice the toughness. Here there is no scatter as the str roll has determined who was hit.

Tri wrote:?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.

no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).

for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"

So what happens if the 5/6 scatters and two models are partially under the template hole? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

Only a model under the template hole is hit. There doesn't seem to be an accommodation for models partially under the hole. The blast may be too focused to hurt anything it only partially hits.

If you really want a nice, RAW, literal bit of nonsense, look at the last line of the 6,6 result. 'Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.' There is nothing about vehicles needing to be under the template or anything else... so those steps should be skipped. Every vehicle takes a penetrating hit!

Gitzbitah wrote:Only a model under the template hole is hit. There doesn't seem to be an accommodation for models partially under the hole. The blast may be too focused to hurt anything it only partially hits.

If you really want a nice, RAW, literal bit of nonsense, look at the last line of the 6,6 result. 'Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.' There is nothing about vehicles needing to be under the template or anything else... so those steps should be skipped. Every vehicle takes a penetrating hit!

Nice reducto ad absurdum [sic]! Excellent, and because every model in 40k is too big to fit entirely under the template hole nothing is hit at all! So a 5,6 results in no hits. Jesuits would be envious of this casuistry.

I'm glad there is still a bit of absurdity out there! It renews my faith in the human race.

My logic is faulty, but my point is still a solid one. Games Workshop doesn't write with the economy of language being sought in this thread. They may say you shouldn't roll for scatter through implication and variations in wording. When you ask yourself if they meant that, or if they were just trying to keep the writing interesting, there isn't a clear answer. My money is on incompetence and typos over an intentional deadly accuracy for this weapon.

The other weapon descriptions only enumerate the parts that change from the basic stat line. None of them bother telling you to use the large blast template. Only the results that alter the AP list it. They assume you'll apply the existing rules to fill in the gaps. Because they chose to write this section of the rules in a patchwork fashion, we must reasonably assume that any absence should be filled in with the normal rules.

Well, that was more productive... but much less fun than my last post.

olympia wrote:

Tri wrote:?? 5,6 only the model under the template hole is hit but the shot is strength 10.

no where does it say that the template doesn't scatter. it only say that only the model under the hole is hit. same way that only models under the hole are hit at ap1 from a partical whip (necrons).

for it to happen as you say it would have to read "one model in the targeted unit is takes a hit at Strength 10"

So what happens if the 5/6 scatters and two models are partially under the template hole? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

would have to be an amazing scatter to get two models under the hole (not bases, models). I think, in that even they would both be hit but its not likely to see that happening.

Tri wrote:

olympia wrote:

So what happens if the 5/6 scatters and two models are partially under the template hole? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

would have to be an amazing scatter to get two models under the hole (not bases, models). I think, in that even they would both be hit but its not likely to see that happening.

What basis do you have for saying that both would be hit when the codex tells you only one can be hit? We've all played games where improbable rolls happen--it's one of the things that makes the game fun. Getting two models partially under the template is easier than you think. For example, take two rhinos and put them hull to hull as one might do to block LOS. If this happened in a game you would have both rhinos take hits. However, the codex says you only hit "the model" under the template hole. What is allowing you to hit two? the BRB you say? No, because the codex overrules that and the codex states you hit one. So you should apply occham's razor which says that given two options, choose the one the one that is parsimonious---NO scatter. In fact, as I already pointed out, when you first place the template you can only cover one model with the template hole; this is the only time this state is guaranteed. Anyone else want to explain what happens when two models are hit by a 5,6 result? anyone? No? Silence is acquiescence.

Yakface already pointed out the simplest solution. The less variation from the BRB, the simpler a solution. I'm a little confused by your posts, Olympia. It looks like you want to start a logical argument from the jargon, but then you throw out inflammatory taunts. Silence is acquiescence? There's no logic in that statement. I assume you wish to engage in a logical debate rather than trolling up a flame war. Here's my logical take on it.

My contention is that the Shokk results only list the variations from standard operation. Therefore anything not listed in the result description falls back on the basic rules of the weapon. This means that 5,6 and 12 would scatter because nothing in them alters the Ordnance weapon aspect of the SAG's profile.

As to how to determine the hits for 5,6, I suspect any models under it should be hit. I do not possess a Necron codex, but they seem to have a similar weapon. Does anyone know how they handle the models under the hole in the template? I suggest we use the behavior of that weapon as our model for determining hits for a result of 5,6.

Gitzbitah,
So your position is that a bzzap result which states "ONLY THE MODEL under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10" [emphasis mine] could hit two models. I just don't see how that is tenable. Your response is, "Because that is what best conforms to the BRB." But of course that contradicts the ork codex--assuming you understand "ONLY THE MODEL" to mean one model. What happens when a codex contradicts the BRB (turbo-boost scout move anyone?)? The codex trumps it.


edit: at least you don't endorse the position that it's an unlikely event so just ignore it and hope it doesn't come up.

Why cant we follow the rules for each option on the SAG (random) table.. all the options tell you to do somthing.

Whether that be resolve the attack with a modifyed stat line, the opponents picks a target, the mek boy dies etc.

Every options up untill the last two tells you exactly what to do so why, therefore, is there such confusion on the last two options.

If you follow options 1-5 to the letter why not follow the last two in the same way?

I'm not sure how to handle 5,6. That's why I'm asking for what the Necron codex says we should do for a weapon that uses the hole of a large template.

The only other example I can think of is a blast of some sort against a vehicle, but I can't recall what you do in that situation when the hole does not completely cover the hull.

How do these two situations function? We should be able to make a reasonable guess as to the hit determination from them.

@ Razerous- Actually, the table is only explicit about exceptions. The result which allows your opponent to resolve the shot does not bother telling you what the AP or strength is. They tend to tell you what works differently. We're assumed to use the standard profile except where the results modify it.

Olympia it is an unlikely event. i don't argue it won't come up or ignore it but i it doesn't change my view.

"only the model under the template hole is hit"

where does it say that the template stays still? no where.
what do we do if a codex doesn't have answer? fall back to the BGB.
what happens to template weapons? they scatter 2D6-BS. If a hit is roll the template stays where it is.
what if the hole scatters over two models? Amazing luck you hit both.
But the codex say "ONLY THE MODEL under the template hole is hit"? OK we'll play it your way. Still nothing to stop it scattering ... oh look it scatter over 2 models well RAW you only hurt one of them.

was going to work out the chances of this happening before realising how rare it would be. Roll for strength and scatter odds are 4/108 then add that you might land on 2 models and the odds the become maddeningly low because ...
A) 2 models must be close enough to fit under the hole B) it must scatter that distance
C) they must be just the right distance to be scatter on to.

So unless you're shooting into a unit of 50 conscript all base to base its almost never going to come up ... if your shooting at a rhino next to another rhino you must scatter perfectly to cover both (top down they're not rectangles they've vents sticking out the sides) again highly unlikely to happen.

it just seemed odd that they would actually expect anything to ever be directly under the hole after a scatter but after thinking about it i guess its the same for a WHFB stone thrower so they do expect it to scatter and the hole to land on someone. granted in 40k that seems much less likely.

You know why it seems confusing? Because it's poorly written. It's not supposed to be poorly written but gamers read it and say,"what about scatter? do we still scatter?" and others say, "why wouldn't you scatter?"

It doesn't make sense when you apply scatter rolls to the results of the table because you're not supposed to. Granted by a RAW reading you do because it doesn't explictly tell you not to. Which is why I asked the author of the book. And he said, "Of course not," and looked at me like I was crazy for asking.

Personally when I read the rules for it, it never occured to me that you would roll for scatter because it never tells you to roll for scatter. The obvious counter to that is that it also never tells you to roll to wound either. Which is a straw-man argument IMO. Shooting is seperate from wounding. It doesn't have to tell you how to wound because the core rulebook already tells you that. The codex specific rules of the SAG misfire tells you what happens, who is hit, the S of the hit, the AP of the hit. Rolling on the misfire chart is a break from the normal shooting sequence - you don't go back to the shooting sequence after rolling on the table, you go to hits and wounds.

It really needs to be FAQ'd. But it probably won't ever be.