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.

RejjeN wrote:Unrelated question I guess... But how do you get plasmaguns on a Rhino?

Chaos Rhinos can take Combi-Plasmas. Razorbacks can take them as well via the Index but it's not as effective due to the increased cost.

DeathReaper wrote:

Plasma causes the model to be "slain", explodes happens when the model is "reduced to zero wounds".

Which are the same thing.

Do you have a rules citation for this? I provided one for "Reduced to Zero wounds results in being slain", but I can't seem to find one for the reverse.

Already posted it, but ill repost:

Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Already posted it, but ill repost:

Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Sorry but I am not seeing it, can I get a complete quote? All I see is "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." I don't see anywhere where it says the reverse (If a model is either slain or destroyed its wounds are reduced to 0 and removed from play.)

This is the crux of my problem, if a model is outright slain without being reduced to zero wounds, does it trigger things that only happen when you're reduced to 0 wounds? The answer is no, because you were not reduced to zero wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry but I am not seeing it, can I get a complete quote?

Then you are not looking at page 7

"" If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Reduced to 0 wounds = slain or destroyed. Slain or destroyed = 0 wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry but I am not seeing it, can I get a complete quote?

Then you are not looking at page 7

"" If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Reduced to 0 wounds = slain or destroyed. Slain or destroyed = 0 wounds.

Again, there is no rules basis to suggest that. There is only rules basis to suggest that reduced to 0 wounds => slain or destroyed, not slain or destroyed => reduced to 0 wounds. What you're claiming is like saying "If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target." also means "If an attack successfully wounds the target, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack scores a hit on the target."

All medicines are drugs, but not all drugs are medicines.

The quote i posted equates 0 wounds and slain or destroyed. Right there in the rules. Ignore it if you want but that wont change that it is right there.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The quote i posted equates 0 wounds and slain or destroyed. Right there in the rules. Ignore it if you want but that wont change that it is right there.

It does no such thing. It says that as a consequence of being reduced to 0 wounds, you are slain or destroyed. It does not say they are the same thing. I am ignoring nothing, it is you who are misinterpreting the rules. I also notice you offered no rebuttal to the issue your logic causes.

 Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Unless there is something I have missed .....

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Common. Sense.

Yep, that's about right.

-

As Voltaire himself said: "Common sense is not so common".

Or as Wikipedia puts it:

The concept of common sense is a long-standing term, based on human experience and people's individual perceptions. Common sense isn't actually common, in either sense: it is different from person to person, and may not be employed even when many editors could agree on what it is in a particular situation.
...
By assuming your position is "common sense" and acting upon it, all you're doing is insulting the people who disagree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_sense_is_not_common

I will never understand why the playerbases of most other games, from MtG to Risk, from Arkham Horror to Ascension and all that lies inbetween them, can grasp this concept but 40k players, when confronted with GW obviously screwing up, instead default to: "Please sir, I'd like some more" about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The quote i posted equates 0 wounds and slain or destroyed. Right there in the rules. Ignore it if you want but that wont change that it is right there.

It does no such thing.

Incorrect, it does.

It says that as a consequence of being reduced to 0 wounds, you are slain or destroyed. It does not say they are the same thing.

by the context of the rules being reduced to 0 wounds and being slain or destroyed are the same thing.

I am ignoring nothing,

You are ignoring the context.

it is you who are misinterpreting the rules.

No, I am just not ignoring the context.

I also notice you offered no rebuttal to the issue your logic causes.

My logic causes no issues.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The quote i posted equates 0 wounds and slain or destroyed. Right there in the rules. Ignore it if you want but that wont change that it is right there.

It does no such thing.

Incorrect, it does.

It says that as a consequence of being reduced to 0 wounds, you are slain or destroyed. It does not say they are the same thing.

by the context of the rules being reduced to 0 wounds and being slain or destroyed are the same thing.

I am ignoring nothing,

You are ignoring the context.

it is you who are misinterpreting the rules.

No, I am just not ignoring the context.

I also notice you offered no rebuttal to the issue your logic causes.

My logic causes no issues.

Great post, solidly argued. It does seem to show that the OP is just looking for a fight about this, not wanting to genuinely explore an ‘issue’. Wanting input requires being open to other takes, not spending time rebutting every comment not in line with their hypothesis. If the OP is determined to split hairs this much (he’ll claim he’s playing 100% by the rules and throw some slight at me) then the Plasma Gun rule invoked by the Combi-Weapon profile only mentions being ‘slain’ not ‘destroyed’ - if he can accept that slain and destroyed are synonymous, even though you can’t ‘slay’ a vehicle, then ‘being reduced to zero wounds’ also being the same isn’t a massive stretch away (especially as the rules do cover that). It’s fairly illogical to pretend that zero wounds is some magically different and separate state.

The only thing that being immediately slain would seem to do is prevent the use of Disgustingly Resilient etc. If you lose all your wounds you could try to prevent those losses. If you’re straight-up slain there’s no mechanic to ignore wounds, as you’ve skipped wounding and gone straight to death.

Literally the only reason this thread exists is that for some reason all vehicle Datasheets reference reduced to zero wounds instead of destroyed. Seems like a pure consistency error (Datasheets consistent but not consistent with Rulebook terminology) but who honestly knows? There’s not enough context to be able to judge why, only that it’s different. If GW FAQ that for some reason they meant Rhinos to not explode in edge cases, cool. Until then there’s plenty to suggest that they do explode.

I can see where BCB is coming from, but this might just come down to how you read the sentence (yay, right?):

"If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

So, are "slain" and "destroyed" synonymous? If not then maybe "slain" is specifically a reference to plasma overcharge and such?

Another important thing to note, is that vehicles explode when a model is reduced to 0 wounds because that happens before you remove the model. If it happened afterwards the vehicle would explode off of the board.

Dandelion wrote:
I can see where BCB is coming from, but this might just come down to how you read the sentence (yay, right?):

"If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

So, are "slain" and "destroyed" synonymous? If not then maybe "slain" is specifically a reference to plasma overcharge and such?

Another important thing to note, is that vehicles explode when a model is reduced to 0 wounds because that happens before you remove the model. If it happened afterwards the vehicle would explode off of the board.

I think GW uses slain for people and destroy for vehicles. Because you don't slay a car, you destroy it.

All this thread is is overthinking simple things and trying to break the rules based on that.

nekooni wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I can see where BCB is coming from, but this might just come down to how you read the sentence (yay, right?):

"If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

So, are "slain" and "destroyed" synonymous? If not then maybe "slain" is specifically a reference to plasma overcharge and such?

Another important thing to note, is that vehicles explode when a model is reduced to 0 wounds because that happens before you remove the model. If it happened afterwards the vehicle would explode off of the board.

I think GW uses slain for people and destroy for vehicles. Because you don't slay a car, you destroy it.

All this thread is is overthinking simple things and trying to break the rules based on that.

Very much this.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I can see where BCB is coming from, but this might just come down to how you read the sentence (yay, right?):

"If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

So, are "slain" and "destroyed" synonymous? If not then maybe "slain" is specifically a reference to plasma overcharge and such?

Another important thing to note, is that vehicles explode when a model is reduced to 0 wounds because that happens before you remove the model. If it happened afterwards the vehicle would explode off of the board.

I think GW uses slain for people and destroy for vehicles. Because you don't slay a car, you destroy it.

All this thread is is overthinking simple things and trying to break the rules based on that.

Very much this.

It's not, though. It's asking a legitimate question based on the wording of the rule. "If A, then B. B, hence A" is a logical fallacy. Claiming that "f a unit is reduced to zero wounds it is destroyed" is the same as "if a unit is destroyed, it is reduced to zero wounds" is fallacious. It MAY be correct, but based on the wording GW gave us, it;s not 100% clear. Again, I know how I would play it, but that's not what this forum is for. This forum is for discussing the rules as written, and as written, destroyed does not mean 0 wounds, even though 0 wounds means destroyed.

I agree with BCB in this case.
Reducing to 0 wounds = Slain, but being slain does not equal 0 wounds.
If all of your legs and arms are cut off you are slain. In other situations, being slain doesn't mean all of your arms and legs were cut off. Perhaps you got shot. Or read too many of BCB's posts and jumped off a cliff.

In 7th, (I know BCB, this is 8th and 7th has no bearing) they ruled things such as death rays that removed models from the table as reducing them to 0 wounds. This shows previous intent.
However, in 8th, Yarrick's FAQ rule clearly shows things can be removed without being reduced to 0 wounds. So, who knows what their intent is now.

But, the vast majority will never play it that way.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry but I am not seeing it, can I get a complete quote?

Then you are not looking at page 7

"" If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Reduced to 0 wounds = slain or destroyed. Slain or destroyed = 0 wounds.

You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true. Being slain or destroyed does not automatically mean being reduced to zero wounds, going to 0 wounds could be merely a one subset of ways to be alain. For example, digging back into past editions (3rd or 4th), you had some weapons that said if you rolled a 6, the target was cast into the warp, forever lost, and was treated as destroyed. Did that mean he was reduced to 0 wounds? If so, would it be before or after he was cast into the warp? And how do you know he has 0 wounds instead of still having all his wounds but is stuck in the warp, unable to get back to the rest of his army?

I'll agree that from a common sense standpoint and most likely what GW intended is for something being slain to be reduced to 0 wounds, but they didn't make and explicit statement saying it that anything slain has been reduced to 0 wounds. From a RAW standpoint it does matter for any effects that say a model or unit is slain or destroyed without specifying wound damage. From a HiWPI standpoint (for most people, I would wager) treating 0 wounds and treating something as slain would be the same thing.

Yes

The ruling is definitely ambiguous and the Commissar Yarrick FAQ only proves the ambiguity is real.

It makes little sense that a plasma gun would completely destroy a rhino, but the rules are clear - it does. It makes perfect sense that a model that is slain or destroyed would have 0 wounds left, but the rules are unclear.

I, personally, would and will roll for my Rhinos to explode whenever they are reduced to 0 wounds or are otherwise slain or destroyed unless the affect that destroys it clearly states that it does not bring the model to 0 wounds, but removes it as a casualty with its remaining wounds. I believe that the reason the Explode rule states "reduced to 0 wounds" instead of "destroyed" is to prevent any ambiguity. Instead of simply saying "when the vehicle is destroyed," they decided to use the definition of destroyed - when a model is brought to 0 wounds it is slain or destroyed. I think that the RAI is clear.

 Kharneth wrote:


It makes little sense that a plasma gun would completely destroy a rhino, but the rules are clear - it does. It makes perfect sense that a model that is slain or destroyed would have 0 wounds left, but the rules are unclear.

Given that we know it's easier for overcharged plasma guns to blow up when shooting at Alaitoc units and/or at flyers that are hard to hit, or at units in cover, or if you took one step before firing, we know how temperamental the plasma guns are, so nothing should be a surprise when it comes to having an exploding plasma gun take something out.

 doctortom wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:


It makes little sense that a plasma gun would completely destroy a rhino, but the rules are clear - it does. It makes perfect sense that a model that is slain or destroyed would have 0 wounds left, but the rules are unclear.

Given that we know it's easier for overcharged plasma guns to blow up when shooting at Alaitoc units and/or at flyers that are hard to hit, or at units in cover, or if you took one step before firing, we know how temperamental the plasma guns are, so nothing should be a surprise when it comes to having an exploding plasma gun take something out.

Lmfao. I never really gave it much thought, but wtf, plasma guns are just begging to blow up!

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two. The rules indicate that one follows the other. If A, then B. Not A equals B.

Please stop making this incorrect statement. It is either confused or disingenuous, and either way, it is confusing what is already an unpleasant topic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

They do not equate the two, and you have offered no proof.

What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that because all bananas are fruit, that all fruit are bananas.

 Octopoid wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two.

It actually does equate the two. Context matters...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two.

It actually does equate the two. Context matters...

I can repeat myself without backing it up, too!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two.

It actually does equate the two. Context matters...

Proof? I showed how what you're saying isn't correct, why the two aren't equivalent based on the statement you are referencing. It's in the post directly above your previous post.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.

The rules equate the two.

You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two.

It actually does equate the two. Context matters...

Proof? I showed how what you're saying isn't correct, why the two aren't equivalent based on the statement you are referencing. It's in the post directly above your previous post.

He's just going to say "context" again, like that explains everything. It doesn't, hasn't, and won't, but that's the answer he'll give.

Is there some other situation where this would matter besides the plasma gun blowing up and destroying a vehicle?

Pg 181 BRB, section 5 . Inflict Damage:

(skipping the first sentence)...If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.

If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play.
Reducing wounds to 0 means that models are Slain/Destroyed. This also means that slain is synonymous with destroyed. "And removed from play" indicates that anytime a model is reduced to 0 wounds (indicating it is Slain/Destroyed) it is removed from play.

If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.
This indicates that models are removed as soon as they have 0 wounds, and all other wounds have no effect. This means wounds don't spill over to other models in the unit, and a model can never go to negative wounds, 0 is the stop.

Models can only have either positive wounds, or 0 wounds. If they are Slain/Destroyed and removed from play, they have 0 wounds.

Dreadnaughts being carried by Storm Ravens. If there is only a Dreadnaught onboard and the Strom Raven is destroyed and the player rolls a "1" then the dreadnaught is "slain". Again it doesn't say reduced to 0 wounds it specifically says "slain".