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.

Yes, here the RAW is clear: you perform both results.

'Of course, you are free to play it the way you THINK is correct among your friends, just like I can always tell my best pal we play that my ork boys have initiative 10 and S20. It works the same way '

You can, but he'd never want to play you again

The discussion over the effect of the 6'6 result is not quite as clear cut as you'd make it out to be, otherwise no-one would ever play it another way, but ok- we'll agree to disagree on that.

What i'm asking for now is people's actual experience of enacting this ruling. NOT a RAW ruling from your own opinion, but a 'how would you/have you played this' and the opinions of your opponents / TO's as to the ruling.

Has anyone in this discussion (except me) actually PLAYED a SAG mek, and what was the ruling that came up?

I have played a SAG Big Mek, but have yet to roll box-cars with it.

Knowing the group I play in, we would play it as a single penetrating hit (RAW or not).

As would our group steelmage. Come on people, let's put our common sense hats on! What would be the point of the vehicle also suffering a penetrating hit if it had already been removed? I think this is a case of the rule not explicitly pointing out the difference between vehicles and non vehicles in this scenario.

Ascalam wrote:What i'm asking for now is people's actual experience of enacting this ruling. NOT a RAW ruling from your own opinion, but a 'how would you/have you played this' and the opinions of your opponents / TO's as to the ruling.

This a a place where rules are discussed, and people are educated of what is supposedly right (or wrong) as per written in the rulesbook or codexes. So I don't see how your logic applies properly. If 10 person are playing it wrongly, and 2 person played it right, it doesn't make the 10 person right. It just means they need to be educated

If a vehicle exploded, because it was sucked into the warp, it would blow up in the warp.

Therefore, no one's logic here is flawed, only GW's. Obviously, it's their fault.

ChrisCP wrote:Vehicles are still a models, they are still removed from play.

Ascalam wrote:Yes, vehicles are still models:

The text from the codex is:


... Any model hit bu the gun this turn is removed from play. Vehicles hit take an automatic penetrating hit.'

I agree with Ascalam; personally I think it's a case of 'Specific' superceding 'General'.

"Any model..." = general
"Vehicles..." = specific (well, more specific than "any model").


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, here the RAW is clear: you perform both results.

Quick question, bordering on philosophy: assuming both results are performed and they are performed in the order stated in the rules (remove, then resolve pen. hit), is it possible to resolve a penetrating hit on a vehicle that isn't there? It's already been removed.

Ulver wrote:Quick question, bordering on philosophy: assuming both results are performed and they are performed in the order stated in the rules (remove, then resolve pen. hit), is it possible to resolve a penetrating hit on a vehicle that isn't there? It's already been removed.

Again, flawed understanding of the fundamental can never lead you to the right conclusion.

Neither effect is before the other. You perform BOTH simultaneously, just like the way you would treat 2 glancing and 1 penetrating hits (for example). You don't normally tell people : "I decide the penetrating shot hits FIRST, and the 2 glancing shots being SECOND and THIRD". Instead, EVERYTHING is fired together, and resolve AT THE SAME TIME.

striderx wrote:

Ascalam wrote:I gave you my interpretation of the rule, and the fact that everyone i have ever played against, at any venue has played this way. I don't say we're right, from a logic stance, just that that's the way it seems to be played.

I m sorry, but your RAI may be very different from other's RAI. Everyone MAY (or may not) interpret the intention differently. I prefer to stick to RAW - at least I have something black and white to back me up.
And I don't understand how by sticking STRICTLY to RAW, one is being a WAAC player.

You speak of logic, but so far all your logic bemuses me.

Ascalam wrote:you'd be hard put to find a single player who had read the ork codex who'd allow you to pull something like that.

There is already a handful here in this thread

Do you also insist that monstrous creatures can shoot in your opponents shooting phase and models without eyes cant fire?

ChocolateGork wrote:
Do you also insist that monstrous creatures can shoot in your opponents shooting phase and models without eyes cant fire?

Then explain how you would come to that conclusion. Explain it well and I may probably be impressed.

striderx wrote:
1) You remove the vehicle from the game.
2) You roll a D6 for damage table results. If you roll a SIX, roll a D6 to determine the explosion radius.

The RAW is CLEAR, it is not VAGUE here. You do TWO things.

I disagree. To me, text clearly implies that something different happens to vehicles. Furthermore, in Warhammer rules terminology, "model" is often used to refer non-vehicle miniatures.

Do you get one?

says immediately remove all models under the template from play - could be interpreted as no cover save, but i imagine this would be challenged.

what do you guys think?

you laugh, you shake their hand and remove everything under the plate. I've lost 505 points to this in one game, all you can do is laugh and soldier on.

Backfire wrote:I disagree. To me, text clearly implies that something different happens to vehicles.

Kindly quote me your source? Where does it says something DIFFERENT happens to vehicles? If 2 things are mentioned, then you carry out both. You don't choose what you want.

Backfire wrote:Furthermore, in Warhammer rules terminology, "model" is often used to refer non-vehicle miniatures.

Same here. Quote me where in the rulebook that says the word "model" is used to refer to non-vehicles. You must have gotten your "Warhammer rules terminology" from somewhere, right?

striderx wrote:

Backfire wrote:Furthermore, in Warhammer rules terminology, "model" is often used to refer non-vehicle miniatures.

Same here. Quote me where in the rulebook that says the word "model" is used to refer to non-vehicles. You must have gotten your "Warhammer rules terminology" from somewhere, right?

BRB page 3.

Backfire wrote:

striderx wrote:

Backfire wrote:Furthermore, in Warhammer rules terminology, "model" is often used to refer non-vehicle miniatures.

Same here. Quote me where in the rulebook that says the word "model" is used to refer to non-vehicles. You must have gotten your "Warhammer rules terminology" from somewhere, right?

BRB page 3.

That 1st paragraph, unfortunately does not exclude vehicles. It is merely a non exhaustive elaboration of what "models" mean. In fact, you would have gotten your answer from the first sentence. 2nd sentence, and the last sentence of the paragraph as well.
Read the whole paragraph as a whole, and the meaning is clear.

striderx wrote:That 1st paragraph, unfortunately does not exclude vehicles. It is merely a non exhaustive elaboration of what "models" mean. In fact, you would have gotten your answer from the first sentence. 2nd sentence, and the last sentence of the paragraph as well.
Read the whole paragraph as a whole, and the meaning is clear.

I've read it many times, thank you. Don't you think it's telling that vehicles, which have such an important role in the game, are not mentioned in the definition?

And yes, I know there are examples where vehicles are referred as models too. Just as well as there are examples where it is obvious that 'models' excludes vehicles.

Backfire wrote:Don't you think it's telling that vehicles, which have such an important role in the game, are not mentioned in the definition?

No, I didnt think so, just like I didnt felt weird that they quoted orks, marines, and eldar, but not necrons, daemons, or Tau.

Backfire wrote: there are examples where it is obvious that 'models' excludes vehicles.

Again, quote the sources for us. Don't leave things hanging halfway.

Vehicles are models. Seriously, attempting to play they are not models is....not going to work too well.

Backfire wrote:

striderx wrote:That 1st paragraph, unfortunately does not exclude vehicles. It is merely a non exhaustive elaboration of what "models" mean. In fact, you would have gotten your answer from the first sentence. 2nd sentence, and the last sentence of the paragraph as well.
Read the whole paragraph as a whole, and the meaning is clear.

I've read it many times, thank you. Don't you think it's telling that vehicles, which have such an important role in the game, are not mentioned in the definition?

And yes, I know there are examples where vehicles are referred as models too. Just as well as there are examples where it is obvious that 'models' excludes vehicles.

I'm reading it right now...

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Each model is an individual playing piece with its own capabilities."
Units: "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units... vehicle squadrons are made up of a number of vehicles...."
Measuring distances: "For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles)..."
Characteristics: "For all models except vehicles..."

I'd love to see the examples where models obviously excludes vehicles as well.

RAW both results apply.

But surely the inclusion of the vehicles stipulation makes the RAI clear?

Not really. It could be "try for a pen-6 so it blows up, killing models around before it is removed" RAI.


Which is why RAI is quite a sucky-standard to use: it relies on people having a common reinterpretion of a rule, which doesnt happen.

Well here's one. Say the penetrating hit wrecks the vehicle, and a unit is inside - since the effects are resolved simultaneously (RAW), woudl the unit inside avoid being removed from play?

Yes they would, as the large blast marker wasnt covering them.

Well that's consolation at least, and makes a bit more sense!

striderx wrote:

Ulver wrote:Quick question, bordering on philosophy: assuming both results are performed and they are performed in the order stated in the rules (remove, then resolve pen. hit), is it possible to resolve a penetrating hit on a vehicle that isn't there? It's already been removed.

Again, flawed understanding of the fundamental can never lead you to the right conclusion.

Neither effect is before the other. You perform BOTH simultaneously, just like the way you would treat 2 glancing and 1 penetrating hits (for example). You don't normally tell people : "I decide the penetrating shot hits FIRST, and the 2 glancing shots being SECOND and THIRD". Instead, EVERYTHING is fired together, and resolve AT THE SAME TIME.

Thanks for the clarification

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not really. It could be "try for a pen-6 so it blows up, killing models around before it is removed" RAI.


Which is why RAI is quite a sucky-standard to use: it relies on people having a common reinterpretion of a rule, which doesnt happen.

That makes sense to me now: the result of the penetrating hit might cause an explosion, causing wounds on other models (that would not be affected by the shokk attack gun) before it is removed.

Tekeino wrote:Yeah, anything that "removes a model from play" ignores all saves. All of them, no armour, cover, inv, fnp or wbb.

I don't have my SW Dex with me, but I believe The Trickster's statis bomb says to remove models from play, but was FAQed to allow WBB rolls. I know SW Dex =/= Ork Dex, but the precedent is there.

liam0404 wrote:Well here's one. Say the penetrating hit wrecks the vehicle, and a unit is inside - since the effects are resolved simultaneously (RAW), woudl the unit inside avoid being removed from play?

Damn, you brought up a good point. I had played it such that when I removed the vehicle, passengers inside are destroyed. Hmm, is there any where in the rulebook that may support my approach?

If not, where can I place the passengers after the transport/vehicle is removed? I have to agree this will be where it gets really bemusing or frustrating.

You leave them where the vehicle used to be, as they were not under the blast marker....

The trickster allows WBB as 1) WBB isnt triggered from wounds, but "remvoed as casualties" and 2) Trickster removes you as a casualty.

It doesnt allow saves of any kind as it doesnt inflict wounds / hits

There's a poll over on Waagh also on this issue:

http://www.the-waaagh.com/forums/?showtopic=48400

Ok, so now logically we're saying that your landraider got sucked into a black hole, but you're fine while standing IN that black hole? And they called my logic bad!

Believe what you want I'll step down from this one, due to an overdose of testosterone and vitriol building up in the thread. I'll be interested to see where it goes though

Just to add to the "how i play it"

i have rolled 6 6 a surprising amount of times considering i haven't had the model for long (4 in 5 games - unbelievable). I would feel dirty trying tell my opponent vehicles are removed from play. At my club its a penetrating hit only. I see the RAW argument, and i like it but when i read the text i do see a distinction.

cant remember who said it but "specific" trumps "general" - specifically, vehicles take a pen. Not additionally, vehicles take a pen. As to a related conundrum, assuming you do remove from play and take a pen, I cant see how passengers would manage to get out of a vehicle and stay safely on the planets soil when a worm hole, supposedly so powerful it can drag a landraider/monlith into the warp, got opened up right next to them. thats arbitrary though as the intention surely is pen only.

but RAW is RAW so on a technical level what can i say other than my opinion of RAI. i thought most people would agree with pen only but clearly not so i really do hope they FAQ it, and hell i hope when they do and FAQ they say vehicles are removed from play - but my conscience doesn't allow it based on a dodgy RAW as it stands.

Opinion only - don't hate!