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.

MarkyMark wrote:
Thinking about it, the most suitable comparsion to this would b power of the machine spirit right?, allows you to fire a extra weapon at your full BS, and guess what you cant use your full BS to fire at a flyer....

This isn't a remotely comparable point.

40k-noob wrote:

Mega_Nob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as reduction in the English language means that it is not as high as it was before.

In the 40k rules Snapshots are a Set value, not a reduction.

Well, that's not what the FAQ says. And, what's that you say? It's official and written by GW themselves? And they say a snap shot REDUCES your BS to 1. Wow, they do know their own rules don't they?!!

No, you are incorrect. The question is not GW saying ANYTHING. The questions in FAQ are posed by the general public.

The answer, is what GW says.

Yes, and GW saw fit not to change the wording of the question, Being "If my BS is reduced to 1, do I fire my seeker at BS1 or BS 5?" And answered it by saying the seeker fires at BS5.
So, official GW ruling as per the FAQ is that the seeker fires at BS5 in any situation where the vehicles BS is reduced to one. Eg any time it has to make a snap shot.

paidinfull wrote:

then apply any additions or subtractions,

No additions or subtractions here either so let's skip this (remember "assumed BS5" ) so let's skip this too

So reductions aren't additions or subtractions?

So, by that logic then all FAQs are rendered irrelevant because the question is not an official statement by GW, therefore the answer to a question which doesn't exist (Because it's not GW's word) is held pointless.

There! I disproved FAQs forever!

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:

then apply any additions or subtractions,

No additions or subtractions here either so let's skip this (remember "assumed BS5" ) so let's skip this too

So reductions aren't additions or subtractions?

Good grief. That was your "Gotcha moment?"
It's referring to the specific mathematical function. You know, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication...
You can reduce a value either by subtraction, division, squareroot or a myriad of other methods.
When setting a value that is less than the original you are not declaring how you are reducing it, merely that you are.

If I have 5 and I reduce it to 1, I've not told you how I did it, but you know that it's reduced.

Come on now.
It's obvious now that you're wrong and simply persisting because you're unwilling to admit you're wrong. Pretty stubborn if you ask me, especially when the facts are 100% in support of my argument.

paidinfull wrote:
It's obvious now that you're wrong and simply persisting because you're unwilling to admit you're wrong. Pretty stubborn if you ask me, especially when the facts are 100% in support of my argument.

I can assert the exact same thing.

And I've admitted when I'm wrong in YMDC before. I'm not infallible and I've never claimed to be.

paidinfull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:

then apply any additions or subtractions,

No additions or subtractions here either so let's skip this (remember "assumed BS5" ) so let's skip this too

So reductions aren't additions or subtractions?

Good grief. That was your "Gotcha moment?"
It's referring to the specific mathematical function. You know, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication...
You can reduce a value either by subtraction, division, squareroot or a myriad of other methods.
When setting a value that is less than the original you are not declaring how you are reducing it, merely that you are.

If I have 5 and I reduce it to 1, I've not told you how I did it, but you know that it's reduced.

Come on now.
It's obvious now that you're wrong and simply persisting because you're unwilling to admit you're wrong. Pretty stubborn if you ask me, especially when the facts are 100% in support of my argument.

The underlined is not true, even though you are asserting it as truth.

The assumed BS of 5 is the characteristic, not a set value.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So, by that logic then all FAQs are rendered irrelevant because the question is not an official statement by GW, therefore the answer to a question which doesn't exist (Because it's not GW's word) is held pointless.

There! I disproved FAQs forever!

The questions are not irrelevant but to assert that the question or how it is worded, is the official position of GW is false.

Just because in a question someone used "reduced to BS1" and GW decided to answer that question does not mean that GW is now saying that Snapshots "reduce your BS"

oh and what you have proved is that you can jump to unfounded conclusions.

40k-noob wrote:
The questions are not irrelevant but to assert that the question or how it is worded, is the official position of GW is false.

Just because in a question someone used "reduced to BS1" and GW decided to answer that question does not mean that GW is now saying that Snapshots "reduce your BS"

It's produced by GW with no accredidation to any person or entity. GW has sole responsibility in the production and distribution of FAQs. It's GWs word as much as the answer. If the question didn't make sense, then they would have worded it differently. If the question was asked multiple times in a confusing manner, they ask the question in the simplest of terms.

Either all FAQs are invalid, or they are produced by GW with fan input, but that does not remove ownership/responsibility/liability from GW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is not true, even though you are asserting it as truth.

The assumed BS of 5 is the characteristic, not a set value.

You can't possibly believe that (underlined). It's functionally identical to Snap Shot.

What's the BS of the Vehicle?
We know that the vehicle is firing the seeker missile, so what's the BS of the vehicle?

As a Tau player I can tell you that it's not 5. Since the vehicle is firing it, and it's BS is not 5, then it has to be a set value.
Vehicles that fire the Seeker missile are:
Devilfish (BS3/4)
Hammerhead (BS4)
Skyray (BS3/4)

Hell it could even be 1 if the vehicle has to fire via Snap Shot.

I have walked you through multiple explanations and disproved each and every assertion that you've made.
I broke down the resolve argument which was flawed. Hard To Hit requires Snap Shots to be fired, and the Tau FAQ clearly equates the use of Snap Shots to the reduction of ballistic skill
I broke down your multiple modifier argument with not one but two different instances that refute your point.

Time and time again I've disproved you, What is that's stopping you from admitting you're wrong? You have to realize it by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So, by that logic then all FAQs are rendered irrelevant because the question is not an official statement by GW, therefore the answer to a question which doesn't exist (Because it's not GW's word) is held pointless.

There! I disproved FAQs forever!

The questions are not irrelevant but to assert that the question or how it is worded, is the official position of GW is false.

Just because in a question someone used "reduced to BS1" and GW decided to answer that question does not mean that GW is now saying that Snapshots "reduce your BS"

oh and what you have proved is that you can jump to unfounded conclusions.

This is a huge pile of malarkey.

It's RAW. The logic is applicable. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. If they did not intend it to function that way then they will need to release another FAQ clarifying. At this point, Seeker Missiles fire at Flyers @ BS5.

paidinfull wrote:
I broke down the resolve argument which was flawed. Hard To Hit requires Snap Shots to be fired, and the Tau FAQ clearly equates the use of Snap Shots to the reduction of ballistic skill

The bolded is incorrect.

Time and time again I've disproved you, What is that's stopping you from admitting you're wrong? You have to realize it by now.

I've stopped really arguing not because you've proven me wrong, but because either I'm failing to explain my point (possible - I'm on some interesting medication at the moment) or you're refusing to accept the possibility that you're wrong as well.

It needs an FAQ one way or the other.

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:
It's obvious now that you're wrong and simply persisting because you're unwilling to admit you're wrong. Pretty stubborn if you ask me, especially when the facts are 100% in support of my argument.

I can assert the exact same thing.

And I've admitted when I'm wrong in YMDC before. I'm not infallible and I've never claimed to be.

You've proved nothing, however.

Each time you've propped something up, I've knocked it down.

You're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:
I broke down the resolve argument which was flawed. Hard To Hit requires Snap Shots to be fired, and the Tau FAQ clearly equates the use of Snap Shots to the reduction of ballistic skill

The bolded is incorrect.

Actually it's not, but I didn't feel it necessary to rehash the Skyfire discussion since you and I already had that. It shouldn't be necessary for me to repeat myself time and again yet here I am.

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:

Time and time again I've disproved you, What is that's stopping you from admitting you're wrong? You have to realize it by now.

I've stopped really arguing not because you've proven me wrong, but because either I'm failing to explain my point (possible - I'm on some interesting medication at the moment) or you're refusing to accept the possibility that you're wrong as well.

It needs an FAQ one way or the other.

If you had stopped arguing I would not be responding to this post. You've persisted and regardless of whether you feel that you are, that's continuing to argue. You're not failing to prove your point, you simply don't have one to make.

There is no such thing as "resolving a Snap Shot without Firing"
Snap Shot reduces Ballistic Skill which makes it the FAQ applicable
and Multiple Modifiers supports the application of BS5 > BS1

Estas incorrecto muchaco.

paidinfull wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is not true, even though you are asserting it as truth.

The assumed BS of 5 is the characteristic, not a set value.

You can't possibly believe that (underlined). It's functionally identical to Snap Shot.

BS5 has to be the base stat.

This shooting is resolved normally in all regards at an assumed ballistic skill of 5

So we shoot a missile. We assume that the model is BS 5 for the purposes of this shot. So the base BS is assumed to be 5, but we are shooting at a flyer so the Snapshot sets the BS to 1 as per the Multiple modifiers rules on P.2 which overrides the base stat of BS5.

paidinfull wrote:
It's RAW. The logic is applicable. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. If they did not intend it to function that way then they will need to release another FAQ clarifying. At this point, Seeker Missiles fire at Flyers @ BS5.

Just because you say that it is true does not make what you say true when I have shown rules to the contrary.

 DeathReaper wrote:

paidinfull wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is not true, even though you are asserting it as truth.

The assumed BS of 5 is the characteristic, not a set value.

You can't possibly believe that (underlined). It's functionally identical to Snap Shot.

BS5 has to be the base stat.

This shooting is resolved normally in all regards at an assumed ballistic skill of 5

So we shoot a missile. We assume that the model is BS 5 for the purposes of this shot. So the base BS is assumed to be 5, but we are shooting at a flyer so the Snapshot sets the BS to 1 as per the Multiple modifiers rules on P.2 which overrides the base stat of BS5.

Dude, you just admitted that the BS5 GETS REDUCED to BS1. And in this case how do we fire the seeker according to the FAQ? AT BS5!!

Dude, Reduce in english is not the same as subtract in the BRB.

Please learn the difference.

paidinfull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:
I broke down the resolve argument which was flawed. Hard To Hit requires Snap Shots to be fired, and the Tau FAQ clearly equates the use of Snap Shots to the reduction of ballistic skill

The bolded is incorrect.

Actually it's not, but I didn't feel it necessary to rehash the Skyfire discussion since you and I already had that. It shouldn't be necessary for me to repeat myself time and again yet here I am.

We didn't actually - I don't think so. Feel free to quote it.
My statement has nothing to do with Skyfire. HTH requires shots be be resolved as Snap Shots. I can quote the rule for you if you need me too.

There is no such thing as "resolving a Snap Shot without Firing"

There is, you just refuse to accept it.

Snap Shot reduces Ballistic Skill which makes it the FAQ applicable

It doesn't, you just refuse to accept it.

and Multiple Modifiers supports the application of BS5 > BS1

It doesn't, you just refuse to accept it.

Estas incorrecto muchaco.

No, me niego a tratar de discutir con alguien cuyo argumento se reduce a "Te equivocas". una y otra vez, en violación de los principios.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Dude, Reduce in english is not the same as subtract in the BRB.

Please learn the difference.

Using English: I have 5 apples, I eat 4 of these apples, I now have 1 apple. Have I reduced the amount of apples to 1 by eating them? Yes. Have I subtracted 4 apples by eating them? Yes. Same thing.

Is the BRB written in English? Yes, the one I have is.

Is BRB a language in its own right? No.

Reduce: To decrease size, amount, extent or NUMBER.

Subtract: To take away (something) from something else so as to DECREASE THE SIZE, AMOUNT, EXTENT OR NUMBER.

Mega_Nob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Dude, Reduce in english is not the same as subtract in the BRB.

Please learn the difference.

Using English: I have 5 apples, I eat 4 of these apples, I now have 1 apple. Have I reduced the amount of apples to 1 by eating them? Yes. Have I subtracted 4 apples by eating them? Yes. Same thing.

Is the BRB written in English? Yes, the one I have is.

Is BRB a language in its own right? No.

Reduce: To decrease size, amount, extent or NUMBER.

Subtract: To take away (something) from something else so as to DECREASE THE SIZE, AMOUNT, EXTENT OR NUMBER.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Just remember to reduce is not the same thing as subtract. They can mean the same thing sometimes, however that is not always the case.

Where is reduce in the Multiple modifiers section? (Hint it is not there).

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So is the BS1 from a Snapshot a multiplier, an addition or subtraction, or a set value?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where is reduce in the Multiple modifiers section? (Hint it is not there).

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So is the BS1 from a Snapshot a multiplier, an addition or subtraction, or a set value?

s

As per the FAQ, the BS1 from a snap shot is a reduction, then it tells me to apply the set value of BS5. there, does that help?

Really? I do not see where GW says Reduction.

Plus the BS5 is not a set value, it is the value of the characteristic at which the shot is made.

We shoot a missile. We assume that the model is BS 5 for the purposes of this shot. So the base BS is assumed to be 5, but we are shooting at a flyer so the Snapshot sets the BS to 1 as per the Multiple modifiers rules on P.2 which overrides the base stat of BS5.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

 DeathReaper wrote:
Really? I do not see where GW says Reduction.

What can a vehicle do when it is shaken or stunned reference to shooting?

Mega_Nob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where is reduce in the Multiple modifiers section? (Hint it is not there).

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So is the BS1 from a Snapshot a multiplier, an addition or subtraction, or a set value?

s

As per the FAQ, the BS1 from a snap shot is a reduction, then it tells me to apply the set value of BS5. there, does that help?

No, it's just a snap shot.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Mega_Nob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where is reduce in the Multiple modifiers section? (Hint it is not there).

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So is the BS1 from a Snapshot a multiplier, an addition or subtraction, or a set value?

s

As per the FAQ, the BS1 from a snap shot is a reduction, then it tells me to apply the set value of BS5. there, does that help?

No, it's just a snap shot.

That GW claims is a reduction in that FAQ

Fragile wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Mega_Nob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where is reduce in the Multiple modifiers section? (Hint it is not there).

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So is the BS1 from a Snapshot a multiplier, an addition or subtraction, or a set value?

s

As per the FAQ, the BS1 from a snap shot is a reduction, then it tells me to apply the set value of BS5. there, does that help?

No, it's just a snap shot.

That GW claims is a reduction in that FAQ

So they use the exact word reduction than?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So they use the exact word reduction than?

Tau FAQ wrote:Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken,
Stunned, for example) do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or
Ballistic Skill 5? (p29)
A: Ballistic Skill 5

They use the word reduced. They don't use reduction as that would simply be repeating themselves.

If something is reduced, it is a reduction. No getting around that.

GW does not, the person that asked the question does.

Notice the difference.

5 to 1 is a reduction in normal English, but the BRB calls that a Set Value.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is no such thing as "resolving a Snap Shot without Firing"

There is, you just refuse to accept it.

What is the rules based difference between firing and resolveing, with rules arguments. I can't find anything that shows a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:

Snap Shot reduces Ballistic Skill which makes it the FAQ applicable

It doesn't, you just refuse to accept it.

GW FAQ disagrees with you, rigeld. They cite situations that cause a snap shot as examples of reductions in BS.

I've been convinced by the BS 5 guys pretty much. Still not sure if that is RAI and think an FAQ could go either way, but BS5 seems more like RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
GW does not, the person that asked the question does.

Notice the difference.

5 to 1 is a reduction in normal English, but the BRB calls that a Set Value.

Right. And why are they mutually exclusive? Are you asserting that the FAQ has no effect ever?

Further are you claiming that GW chose an example question which did not line up with their own views on how snap shots work, or what is a reduction in BS. A reduction could come about by either subtraction, division or set values. The answer to the question and the question itself would indicate BS5 regardless of the type of reduction.

This boils down to the same thing that JoTWW does. FRP vs RFPaaC.

Firing a snap shot
Resolving as a snap shot.

At the end of the day.

RFP is not the same as FRPaaC
and
Firing a snap shot is not the same as resolving as a snap