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.

Panic wrote:
DeffRolla being a prime example, I find that it's the ork players who want the DeffRolla to kill tanks.

Panic...

How peculiar. I find that it's the other players who don't!

Panic wrote:yeah,

DeffRolla being a prime example, I find that it's the ork players who want the DeffRolla to kill tanks.

Panic...

Funny it's all the non-ork players around here want it not to kill tanks, the ork players aren't that fussed really.

Panic - I'm not an Ork player, and I want it to kill tanks.

Ork players o nthe other hand dont seem to mind, as they already dont struggle to kill tanks.

Yeah,
I've started to play orks and will never use the DeffRolla in this manor.

700pts 'Nid bio super heavy gets D6 strength 10 shots at BS3 = rounding up this averages 3 s10 hits...
20pts - DeffRolla upgrade moves 1" and contacts a vehicle = D6 strength10 hits! = rounding up this averages 4 s10 hits...
a 20pt anti infantry upgrade better at armour penetration than 700pt tank hunter IMO is not RAI...

But we are going off topic... although I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread actually is???

Panic...

Edit: a Barbed Heirodule If I remember correctly is Bs3 - Assault D6 - S10 - TwinLinked

The point of the thread is to look at how players read the rules, in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable way of deriving meaning from them to resolve difficulties that arise from ambiguity or other problems.

As a basic example, the FAQ > Codex > BBB is often mentioned in YMDC.

Unless I am mistaken, GW have never made a concrete rule that this principle is correct. From a logical viewpoint it has to work that way, though, or codexes and FAQs have no meaning. So players have made the reasonable assumption to interpret the rule hierarchy that way.

A problem arises, however, when you have an old edition codex which clashes with newer edition rules. The Tau Target Lock wargear is a good example. It asks the Tau player to take a Target Priority test. There is no such test in the 5e rulebook.

How should such a situation be interpreted? Without getting into the arguments, there are two opposing views, one of which relies on the principle that FAQ > Codex > BBB.

yeah,
In this case I agree FAQ > Codex > BRB.

But I also believe that GW should have upto date FAQs and a Comprehensive BRB (like wizards of the coast have for MTG.) for players who don't like rolling off every 1hour or so...

Panic...

I just follow "specific > general"

A specific rule (instead of doing X you do Y) overrides the general rule "do X".

IN this case the rulebook specifies that Ramming is a type of tank shock, and you are told the deff rolla works for ALL tank shocks. ALL(Tank shocks) includes (normal tank shocks, special tank shocks) and therefore includes Ramming.

I understand the other side, however too often the argument boils down to "this is too powerful!" which really *isnt* a rules argumetn!

nosferatu1001 wrote:I just follow "specific > general"

A specific rule (instead of doing X you do Y) overrides the general rule "do X".

IN this case the rulebook specifies that Ramming is a type of tank shock, and you are told the deff rolla works for ALL tank shocks. ALL(Tank shocks) includes (normal tank shocks, special tank shocks) and therefore includes Ramming.

I understand the other side, however too often the argument boils down to "this is too powerful!" which really *isnt* a rules argumetn!

You're right about that.

A lot of rules arguments keep going because side A is afraid of side B's special rule, which they don't have.

Otherwise because people get caught up in the idea of winning the argument and forget that the point is to get a resolution which is fair and workable on the tabletop.

Of course, people's ideas of 'fair' differ due to point 1 (side A vs side B.)

@ Panic ...

Barbie has 2 datasheets. IA4 gives her 2 large blasts, S10 AP3, the Apoc datasheet gives her 2 biocannons that have 6 S10 AP3 shots each, for a total of 12 S10 shots (or 6 twin-linked, depending on your gaming group. Aah, the variability of Apoc!)

I love the model, I use mine as a Tyrannofex.

As far as the OP goes, I have found that when you play amongst a small group of people Rules questions are usually hashed-out and agreed upon in short order. Problems for me arise in tournaments, when i have to get my BRB and show people the rules for simple things like wound allocation and instant death vs. cheesy nobs, etc.

The up-in-the-air issues like vehicles blowing up versus exploding and the effect on the squad inside, deathrollas ramming tanks, usage of psykers at the beginning of the game, etc etc can always be hashed out in basement games with house-rules. Nobody ever played DnD exactly by the rules either. I think if its me and my friend just shoving little toys and laughing about what got blowd up by what it's no big deal. The "competative" type of play, where it actually costs money to enter a game, and have to WIN win win or you have no money to get home - that's where it would be nice for GW to have a definite standard for phrasing. I look at magic cards as a great example, there is no ambiguity, just a straightforeward turn sequence and no arguement can change the order things go. It's also a far more competition-oriented game though and more about who-owns-what in their deck than 40k is. We have dice gods which can sometimes get lucky or not. The more you try to stack the deck, the less fun the game becomes.

Think of drop pods out of imperial armor, versus blood angels drop pods, just as a for instance. It was a conversation a while back, where one guy didn't like certain things in his codex so used IA instead for the bits he didn't like. That's all fine and dandy if everyone wants to sub some long fangs for devastators too but meanwhile take blood angel assaulters, ultramarine sternguard, and IG superheavies... , but the point is to use exactly the codex as intended and there should be no discrepancy. FW stuff screws this up a bit because they make different stuff all the time that give advantage to different armies (like the BA drop pod example), so the standard should be the exact codex you are playing, right?

Of course nobody wants to tell their friend with his shiney new model that he can't play with it, except if you are a jerk and have to friends anyways. But at meetings with people outside your circle, I think the only way to keep things from becoming cutthroat and lawyerish is for everybody to just reduce their house rules assumptions, listen to the dice, and not try to overcomplicate things with sneaky tricks that take advantage of ambiguity and codex creep. GW doesn't write a law book, they write a game.