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.

still,i trust GW to answer this more than you guys,no offense intended

Grakmar wrote:

Deadshot wrote:actually i have new info.i sent the problem to GW email,they wrote back saying that codex rules override expansion rules,every time,so the assassin would wound on 2+,but his other shots on a 6 as normal as they do not say they wound on a specific number

If you write to GW 3 different times, you'll receive 5 different answers. It's an absolutely terrible way to get a rules question answered.

+1 to this. Writing/calling gw will not solve anything for you.

but it helps.they wrote the rules so they can use them as they see fit.there is also the problem of necron tomb stalkers which have the same rule,but GW says that the necron codex overrides assassin

How are we supposed to just believe that you sent an email and got a reply? you have no backing on your argument other than
"I have an email"(which may or may not be true). Even the YMDC tenets point out the flaw

Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

you need a good backing for your argument and claiming to have an email may fall short of that.



I don't mean this to sound in an way that I am accusing you of lying, I am just pointing out that in a forum discussion the "I have proof, but haven't shown you yet" argument needs to carry very little weight.

Oh, did you get an answer from the codex's author? Thought not. You are just getting some random employee's response. Which is fine if that works for you, but then why bother coming on to YMDC if you are already convinced that you have THE TRUTH?

im just going to drop the arguement.you do it your way and i'll use the roll off solution if it becomes a problem mid game

Discuss it with your opponents before the game, that way there are no mid game discussions.

I find pregame discussions better than stopping mid game, but thats just me.

thats better,pregame it is

Deadshot wrote:still,i trust GW to answer this more than you guys,no offense intended

That's really a fail though. It is more likely that a person here (if not all of them) play 40k and know rules. GW people may not even play games.

I thought rulez boyz no longer existed, so writing GW is AT BEST, the exact same thing as asking here.


The real rule is that it wounds on a 4+ on a 4+, and on a '6' on a 4+. If you don't get the joke don't worry about it.

jmurph wrote:why bother coming on to YMDC

to get opinons and if the arguements made sense to me i may have changed my mind

theway the blood angels bit was written made it sound as if you saying use their rules.the melta rule would be a misprint because it would be written asd meklta one time and not anywhere else.Besides the Avatar would still be immune because he is immune to any heat based weapons,including meltas,whether with the rule or not,as per the Eldar FAQ

That illustrates my point though; how would you know the melta rule was a misprint just because it was written only 1 time in the codex in that scenario? The hellfire rounds are written only one time in the codex. How would you know that the specific melta gun in question was actually a heat attack if there was no melta rule, no fluff to the gun, all it said was "this weapon uses 2d6 for armor pen"

You wouldn't know. You're just assuming it's a clear answer because you've seen the weapon name "melta gun" a few dozen times in the rest of the game. Personally, I think the name "HellFIRE" round sounds a bit like a heat based attack, but there's no way I would ever let an Avatar claim immunity to them because I'm assuming they are just like the other dozen Hellfire rounds in the game since they have the same name and wound on the same number.

Hellfire rounds in all SM codexessay that they can only be used in bolters(and in fluff terms s.bolters and pistol because thy shoot the same round)buyt vindicares fire different ones,as noted by different wording and ap.

Lasguns and hotshot lasguns are different weapons with different ap, but they fire the same type of energy round.

Deadshot wrote:but it helps.they wrote the rules so they can use them as they see fit.there is also the problem of necron tomb stalkers which have the same rule,but GW says that the necron codex overrides assassin

That is a problem though, individual authors are hired to write the codex's, and when you write or call gw, you aren't talking to them... you are talking to 1 out of several hundred customer support people who are giving you their idea on how the rules should work. There's actually no difference between doing that and asking people on here; you'll get different answers every time. That's why the forum rules say not to use them as an example, you'll just frustrate yourself doing that.



As it's all been pointed out though, these are all moot points since gargantuan creatures specifically call out sniper rifles, and you are shooting from a sniper rifle.

because the melta gun has a profile that says range X,sX,apX type assaultX(melta)etc,all the hellfire says is Hellfire rounds:this shot always wounds on a 2+

It is a special rule that makes that shot wound on 2+ not it being a sniper weapon (which means it wounds on a 4+) and not it being poisoned. so the gargantuan rule wouldn't apply here.

It never specifies that a sniper weapon firing normal ammo wounds on a 6+, it says sniper weapons which the rifle and pistol both are.

thank you Kharnflakes

Deadshot wrote:because the melta gun has a profile that says range X,sX,apX type assaultX(melta)etc,all the hellfire says is Hellfire rounds:this shot always wounds on a 2+

and how does that prove it's a heat weapon if the "melta" rule at the end is missing and Ward decided to right out the armor pen rule only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:It never specifies that a sniper weapon firing normal ammo wounds on a 6+, it says sniper weapons which the rifle and pistol both are.

exactly, it calls out sniper weapons specifically.

heat based weapons is a fluff thing,as demonstrated by the plasma syphon,which affects plasma wepons that say plasma in the name,as well as plasma missles,pulse weapons,burst cannons etc.if in a weapon descrition it says

"fires a blast of superheated energy..."

Range X SX APX Type X

or something similar,like dragonfire bolts or castellan rocketysd then its heat based

Actually it calls out sniper weapons which have a rule that says they wound on 4+ always. the vindicare's shot is using a completely different rule.

and all weapons have a range x, str x, ap x, and type x

if you have no type or supporting fluff for a weapon, the strength range and ap aren't going to tell you what the heck it is. If you aren't relying on previous standards, then you have no answer, period.

thanks for the support.makes a nice change.btw the poll was saying most people thought it was a 6 but its starting to even out

Kharnflakes wrote:Actually it calls out sniper weapons which have a rule that says they wound on 4+ always. the vindicare's shot is using a completely different rule.

It doesn't say anything about the special rules though, now does it. All the gargantuan creature rule says is "All attacks from sniper and poisoned weapons wound on a 6"

Neither the sniper rules nor the hellfire round rules prevent this. You're firing your round from a sniper weapon, all sniper weapon attacks wound on a 6.

Fyi, the old "shunting is allowed in the scout phase" poll was heavily in favor of it too, and look how that turned out

Yes - GW changed the rules via FAQ, again

Kharnflakes wrote:It is a special rule that makes that shot wound on 2+ not it being a sniper weapon (which means it wounds on a 4+) and not it being poisoned. so the gargantuan rule wouldn't apply here.

I thought the entire reason this topic was started was some exitus rifle rule that was saying it's sniper ability works on a 2+ rather than 4+. So this entire thing is about the hellfire round? Because some noob forgot to write in it's poisoned, like every other hellfire round used by the Imperium? This is stupid. Yet-

Kharnflakes wrote:Actually it calls out sniper weapons which have a rule that says they wound on 4+ always. the vindicare's shot is using a completely different rule.

-I would still go with this, for reasons that people won't listen to because it uses logic and RAI rather than being written down in very specific wording to ensure that an old book is still compatible... Yeah.

Kharnflakes wrote:It is a special rule that makes that shot wound on 2+ not it being a sniper weapon (which means it wounds on a 4+) and not it being poisoned. so the gargantuan rule wouldn't apply here.

The gargantuan rule applies to sniper and poisoned. So this 1 existus shot should actually be 2 reasons why it would apply. Yet I feel that talking is a waste of effort...

omerakk wrote:
This conversation is reminding me of the ones Deathreaper usually makes:

U mad? I'm guessing so, because this was totally pointless. Although I would like to fuel this anyways, in hopes the thread gets locked for bursting into flames.

Go on.

erikwfg wrote:

Kharnflakes wrote:Because some noob forgot to write in it's poisoned, like every other hellfire round used by the Imperium

if your calling me a noob im seriously offended.i did not forget to write it in,it is not mentioned in fluff or rules that it is poisoned.maybe it is different round because
a)no one else has an exitus pattern rifle/pistol
b)every other unit that uses it fires it from bolters,SM,BA,etc

It wasn't really pointless; this does sound exactly like the last 5 threads he started that got locked for being pointless
This one is actually rather fun. So far, I have learned that:

Hellfire rounds are not Hellfire rounds
Sniper weapons are not Sniper weapons
All doesn't = All

It really IS the krak missile debate all over again!! Does anyone still have the link to that phone video?

what threads that got locked?

Not you, Deathreaper's.

And I'm pretty sure he wasn't calling you a noob either, I believe he was referring to Ward

omerakk wrote:Not you, Deathreaper's.

And I'm pretty sure he wasn't calling you a noob either, I believe he was referring to Ward

What about me?

I strive to find the correct rules, Nothing more.

thats what i want too.i believe in the saying,no quarter given,no quarter taken,meaning that i'd be really p-ed off if i lost,later to find that the 6 shots that rolled a 3,should have killed the modal that single handedly beat me hands down

I should've said 'nub', I thought it meant the same thing.

I'm not coming back to this though. pm me if i'm needed.