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.

Ok, it looks like you're with those dirty heathens

Well, if tank hunters won't work with grenades, can you please explain to me why tank hunters would work with powerfists?

Really, I think we're reading way too much into the statement "every weapon has a profile which consists of several elements" (pg 28 of the rulebook).

This section on weapons follows immediately from the section about the shooting phase and ONLY mentions ranged weapons...don't you think it's unreasonable to therefore conclude that the only things that count as "weapons" are the ones described in that section?

We're playing a miniature wargame. Don't you think the word "weapon" is going to be used as a convienent descriptor of whatever they're talking about at the time and so we shouldn't think too hard about coming up with an in-game definition of a "weapon"?

Clearly I?m not reading too much into page 28, nor being bound by the shooting chapter?s description of weapons, as I already allowed that other things which are labeled as weapons should be considered weapons. When the Space Marine codex calls a Powerfist a weapon, I?m comfortable treating it as a weapon.

Fury of the Ancients is not a weapon. Not just because it doesn?t have a weapon profile, but because it?s not described as a weapon anywhere.

You can try to rationalize or ?fluff justify? it one way or the other. It?s a made up psychic power from a fantasy world, so your conception of it as being something that can be precisely aimed at a tank?s weak spots or mine that it?s an indiscriminate attack of everything in a given direction, precluding any kind of precision aiming, are equally valid. And therefore useless for determining how it should be treated under the rules.

The text does not support it being a weapon, and the Tank Hunters text says it works with weapons. That?s the black and white ?rules as written?. It?s generally better to go with the text, especially when you may be playing against people who are not close friends. In cases where the text is ambiguous, many gamers follow the rule of the ?less powerful interpretation?; that is, if you?re not sure how to play something, it?s generally better to err on the side of caution, so as to avoid inadvertently cheating your opponent or being seen as a poor sport.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/10/2006 6:07 AM

 It’s generally better to go with the text, especially when you may be playing against people who are not close friends. In cases where the text is ambiguous, many gamers follow the rule of the “less powerful interpretation”; that is, if you’re not sure how to play something, it’s generally better to err on the side of caution, so as to avoid inadvertently cheating your opponent or being seen as a poor sport.

Well, I agree with this part. But honestly, it makes no sense that Tank hunters would benefit a powerfist but not, say, a melta bomb or krak grenade.

Posted By logan007 on 12/10/2006 7:44 AM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/10/2006 6:07 AM

 It’s generally better to go with the text, especially when you may be playing against people who are not close friends. In cases where the text is ambiguous, many gamers follow the rule of the “less powerful interpretation”; that is, if you’re not sure how to play something, it’s generally better to err on the side of caution, so as to avoid inadvertently cheating your opponent or being seen as a poor sport.

Well, I agree with this part. But honestly, it makes no sense that Tank hunters would benefit a powerfist but not, say, a melta bomb or krak grenade.

“It makes no sense”.

There you go using your “common sense” again.  My common sense tells me that a psychic power causing a blaze of energy to the horizon in a particular direction would be impossible to aim at a tank’s weak spot.  So nyah.  

Given that your common sense and my common sense seem to lead to opposite conclusions, I guess we'll have to compromise and use the text of the rules.

I think "There you go, using your "common sense" again." deserves a sig.

Thanks!

I agree with logan to the extent of the grenades, surely if the vet with TH can exploit a weeknes in the armour with a shooting weapon and a powerfist why not with grenades?

Beef, in terms of real world logic and common sense, I can agree with you.

But absent a rule which describes or defines said grenades as being weapons, the rules don't seem to agree with your logic.

Friggin RAW., its the most stupidest thing GW invented, especially since now they place so much emphasis on it. Grumble, twas never like this in the 2nd edition days.

Its not RaW that is stupid, its the ambiguous rules that are supposed to be taken literally that is making people mad.

Posted By beef on 12/10/2006 12:48 PM
Friggin RAW., its the most stupidest thing GW invented...

Kinda like how Al Gore invented the Internet?

Posted By blue loki on 12/11/2006 6:55 AM

Posted By beef on 12/10/2006 12:48 PM
Friggin RAW., its the most stupidest thing GW invented...

Kinda like how Al Gore invented the Internet?

The difference?  Al Gore needed the media to help confuse people.  GW is so skilled they only need themselves.

RAW was always the gold standard in wargames, which is why almost all the old time wargames have incredibly detailed and hyper-organized rules, with numbered headings and subheadings like “3. Assault.  3.1 Assault in terrain.  3.1.1 Assault in forests 3.1.2 Assault in buildings,” etc.

 

GW has written their rulebooks in a much more pleasant to read, conversational style, but it’s often at the expense of clarity.  It defies logic that they still have not hired one damn guy during an edition revision and look at terms and special rules which can be standardized and put in a Glossary so that we know what exactly counts as a Weapon and whether Line of Fire means the same thing as Line of Sight.

Does that meen we are all dumb, hence the basicness of GW rules?

Posted By Lost_Boys on 12/11/2006 9:45 AM
Does that meen we are all dumb, hence the basicness of GW rules?

Please see the "Who would win?" thread in Fluff for nutters forum.

Tank Hunters simply states that you get +1 to the armor penetration roll. It does not care about the source of the roll. Its not technically an increase to strength, which is why it works on Wave Serpents. By the same token, any situation where a model would roll an armor penetration roll, they can add +1, including Grenades, Fury of the Ancients, Power Fists, or whatever. As long as it makes a conventional Armor Pen roll, it gets the bonus, so things like Wraith Cannons, EMP Grenades, Haywire Grenades, or Vibro Cannons could never benefit from this skill.

Phazael FTW!

- Greenie

Except that Phazeal needs to reread the tank hunters entry. It clearly talks about weapons getting the +1. Whether or not its in parentheses makes no difference because it is there. If it didn't have that caveat, you would be right and we wouldn't be having this argument.

But do they mean 'weapon' as in their own definition of weapon, or the usual dictionary usage, which could include brain magics. Dun dun duuuunnnnnnn.

Looks like we're back to square one...

Posted By the_trooper on 12/11/2006 9:47 AM

Posted By Lost_Boys on 12/11/2006 9:45 AM
Does that meen we are all dumb, hence the basicness of GW rules?

Please see the "Who would win?" thread in Fluff for nutters forum.

I made a dumb thread so that others wouldn't have to...


Guess it didn't work...