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.

I will have to say your argument is quite compelling, the further refining so it now includes 99.9% every Shooting related Situation makes it a lot more difficult to state that it causes problems when being applied Universally. I doubt I will have the focus, or really care, to review every Special Rule in order to create a list of Rules that your interpretation causes problems with. A quick glance over a few codex's inform me that list would likely have as many entries as the list of Rules this interpenetration fixes. Pity there is nothing concrete to suggest that this interpretation is correct from a Rule as Written point of view as it would fix one of the worse written Special Rules in the 6th edition codex. Seriously don't know what an editor was thinking not to send Blind back to the Author to be written into the format used by every other damn Rule of it's type.

Curious though, as this one stood out the most what do you think on it:
If a Imperial Fist Devastator Squad fires a weapon at a Building, does it gain a +1 to the penetration result?

JinxDragon wrote:
ICurious though, as this one stood out the most what do you think on it:
If a Imperial Fist Devastator Squad fires a weapon at a Building, does it gain a +1 to the penetration result?

Are you talking about the chapter tactics which gives devastators tank hunter? I only ask because tank hunter was +1 in 5th but is a reroll in 6th.

The tank hunter rule in the BRB specifies that it works for both shooting and close combat attacks and therefore it is permitted to receive its reroll in both ranged and melee combat.

It grants more then just Tank Hunter, it also gain a +1 to the Penetration Result Roll against Buildings but no mention that this counts for Shooting Attacks.

JinxDragon wrote:
It grants more then just Tank Hunter, it also gain a +1 to the Penetration Result Roll against Buildings but no mention that this counts for Shooting Attacks.

Having looked at the rule of the imperial fists chapter tactics; it states that it adds 1 to the building damage table.

It does present a problem to my interpretation, but I think I may have an answer that I hope you won't think is a cop out.

Perhaps a further refinement of my interpretation should include the idea that a model rolls for the results of his attacks but the weapon is what hits, damages and wounds the target. Thus any special rules that affect the rolls by the model would be permissable but rules that add additional effects or affect the outcome would not resolve unless given permission to do so which the imperial fist chapter tactics would technically do as it specifies that a model adds one to the result.

Because the rule states it "adds one to the result when rolling on the building damage table" I would argue that the rule is general enough that it applies to both shooting and melee as the model rolls to hit, wound and damage in melee as in shooting. The only difference being what is causing the hits, wounds and damage.

Blind and entropic strike would still not resolve under this interpretation when shooting with a model that has those rules. There might be some internal inconsistencies with the interpretation though. I'll think on it for a bit, I think.

I'm just happy you are thinking on the way Rules interact, it is quite refreshing a change then the usual banging on the table and 'no I am right' 'nooooo I am right' discussion so common to this place. I am also impressed with your interpretation, even without further refining it has caused only a fraction of the issues I was originally envisioning for it. This lack of utter chaos, enough so that the fix might encounter less broken situations then the faulty Rule, strengthens your original interpretation a great deal more then your latest round of refining has. After all, anyone whom has witnessed enough of Game Workshop Rule Interaction knows no interpenetration designed to try and fix one of their oversights is going to be absent of the occasional 'exception' that doesn't quite fit it.

So while there is not enough evidence to convince me that it is correct I am more then willing and happy to admit that I can no say for certainty that it isn't on the right track.