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.

Hey guys

Say a squad of Meanstealers charges a DE raider and gets a bunch of 6's to glance. At this point, the vehicle's hullpoints have been removed four or five times over.

Do you *have* to roll on the vehicle damage chart even though the vehicle was wrecked by glances? Or could my friend just neglect to in order to save some genestealers from a blast?

did any of them penetrate?

If yes, roll on the table.

If no, then the glances wreck.

Remember you don't roll on the table for glances anymore.

Brometheus wrote:Hey guys

Say a squad of Meanstealers charges a DE raider and gets a bunch of 6's to glance. At this point, the vehicle's hullpoints have been removed four or five times over.

Do you *have* to roll on the vehicle damage chart even though the vehicle was wrecked by glances? Or could my friend just neglect to in order to save some genestealers from a blast?

Yes you have to roll them.

Gloomfang wrote:

Brometheus wrote:Hey guys

Say a squad of Meanstealers charges a DE raider and gets a bunch of 6's to glance. At this point, the vehicle's hullpoints have been removed four or five times over.

Do you *have* to roll on the vehicle damage chart even though the vehicle was wrecked by glances? Or could my friend just neglect to in order to save some genestealers from a blast?

Yes you have to roll them.

As above, there's no rolling on a table for glances anymore. Glances are just 1 HP removed and when the vehicle has 0 left, it is wrecked (notice the lack of "wreck" on the chart?).

What he is talking about is that stealers Rend on a 6. They are S4. The raider is AV10.

So if the stealers roll a bunch of 6s that means that they glance AV10.

But as they Rend that means you add D3 to the strength. If you do that then you autopen (S10+ at least 1).

If you roll on the penetration chart you have a 1 in 6 chance of having the raider explode.

So the Nid player knows that if he rolls the Rends he puts his stealers at risk of getting an explosion and loosing some stealers. He knows the raider is dead as he has enough glances to kill it.

He is trying to NOT roll the rends so his unit is not at risk. This is not allowed. You have to roll the rends (or just the pens if you know you are going to pen). Then you must roll all those times on the Pen chart and risk the explosion.

Oh, forgot about the rending bit. Ya, he'd have to roll on the chart then, you can't just forgo rules because they may cause you a negative side effect.

pg 74
"You must roll on the vehicle damage table even if the vehicle loses sufficient hull points to be wrecked, as there is still a chance that it explodes!"

...genestealers better take cover

Gloomfang and Texanity (and you others!) thanks a lot.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

-B

Whups! I've been doing it wrong. Thanks for straightening me out.

Rending rule, page 41:
In either case, against vehicles. each armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the results added to the total

Key word being allows; you're not forced to roll the extra penetration dice if you don't want to and are content with glance results.

That isn't permission to not roll, as you aren't given an option there

The word 'allow' infers an option, else it should have said something in the trend of 'must', 'automatically', etc.

Or do you think Relentless models must always charge after they fire a weapon because their rule says 'They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they file Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire or Salvo weapons.' Or that Independent Characters must always be joined to a unit because the IC rule says 'Some characters have the Independent Character special rule,
which allows them to join other units.', etc.

Gloomfang wrote:
If you roll on the penetration chart you have a 1 in 6 chance of having the Vehicle explode.

Rending pens have a 50% chance to explode a raider, not 1 in 6.

1d6 +1 (ap2) +1(Open Topped) = 4+ boom.

I have to say I think he doesn't have to roll to rend as it says allows. Any pens do have to be rolled on the dmg chart obviously, but rolling to rend in the first place can be skipped.

Rending hits are only AP2 against non-vehicle models. Against vehicle models you only get the extra D3 penetration.

^^ Intentional or not, AP2 is not attached to rending against vehicles.


@Redemption, while you are not wrong, consider this: Allow could simply mean that if there is no point in rolling the dice for the additional D3, if you already beat its armour value for example, then you needn't bother. Perhaps we should roll it, if our intitial role did not beat the armour value, in which case there would be a point in doing so.

That is what I took it to mean, roll them if you have not already beat the armour value, don't if it is pointless. It seems odd a Stealer would choose to shove his claw in 1 inch, not 1.2 incase he hit something that might go bang

Redemption wrote:The word 'allow' infers an option, else it should have said something in the trend of 'must', 'automatically', etc.

Context is everything. Both the melee and shooting descriptions say "automatically suffers a wound". Rending automatically causes a wound, but since a vehicle can't suffer a wound they tell us that instead of suffering a wound the vehicle takes an extra d3 armor penetration. Not an option when taken in context of the whole rule.

Or do you think Relentless models must always charge after they fire a weapon because their rule says 'They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they file Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire or Salvo weapons.' Or that Independent Characters must always be joined to a unit because the IC rule says 'Some characters have the Independent Character special rule,
which allows them to join other units.', etc.

Apples and oranges. Choosing to assault or to have an IC join a unit is not the the same as ignoring a d3 to avoid the repercussions of choosing to assault a vehicle with your infantry.

But, in this case context is everything. If you move your IC within 2" of a unit then allows is no longer a choice. The rule says the IC joins, whether you like it or not. If you assault with your relentless unit then change your mind after the point of no return you don't get to point out that they fired heavy weapons so you couldn't assault in the first place and take it back. Allows is not always a choice depending on context.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Redemption wrote:The word 'allow' infers an option, else it should have said something in the trend of 'must', 'automatically', etc.

Context is everything. Both the melee and shooting descriptions say "automatically suffers a wound". Rending automatically causes a wound, but since a vehicle can't suffer a wound they tell us that instead of suffering a wound the vehicle takes an extra d3 armor penetration. Not an option when taken in context of the whole rule.

Indeed, context is everything. The word 'automatically' is clearly only in context of a To Wound roll, which has nothing to do with an Armour Penetration roll.

wrote:Rending hits are only AP2 against non-vehicle models. Against vehicle models you only get the extra D3 penetration.

Didn't realise that, thanks. So Stealer vs raider is a 1 in 3 roll on the table then, cool.

Redemption wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

Redemption wrote:The word 'allow' infers an option, else it should have said something in the trend of 'must', 'automatically', etc.

Context is everything. Both the melee and shooting descriptions say "automatically suffers a wound". Rending automatically causes a wound, but since a vehicle can't suffer a wound they tell us that instead of suffering a wound the vehicle takes an extra d3 armor penetration. Not an option when taken in context of the whole rule.

Indeed, context is everything. The word 'automatically' is clearly only in context of a To Wound roll, which has nothing to do with an Armour Penetration roll.

Rending automatically causes a wound. Instead of a wound you roll a d3. You still automatically cause a wound, which is a d3. Context doesn't mean just the paragraph in question hut the entirety of the rule in question.

Captain Antivas wrote:Rending automatically causes a wound.

Correct.

Instead of a wound you roll a d3.

You're allowed to roll a D3 to add to your armour penetration roll, yes.

You still automatically cause a wound, which is a d3.

No, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The 'automatically cause a wound' only happens when you get a To Wound roll of 6 (that context thing you like to repeat). You don't roll To Wound against vehicles, so you don't get an automatic wound, it's that simple. And even if you roll a Wound, vehicles don't have wounds.

It's the same reason an Armour Penetration roll of 6 with Rending doesn't confer AP2, it's only in context of Wounds, or do you disagree with that too?

It says "allows" because you are not normally allowed to roll anything beyond your standard D6+Str for penetration in CC with standard close combat weapons. It does not say "choose to".

Ha, no avoiding getting stealers dead from the explosion. Just remember to always kill things that go boom last... a lesson hard learned for my gribblies.

Redemption wrote:No, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The 'automatically cause a wound' only happens when you get a To Wound roll of 6 (that context thing you like to repeat). You don't roll To Wound against vehicles, so you don't get an automatic wound, it's that simple. And even if you roll a Wound, vehicles don't have wounds.

It's the same reason an Armour Penetration roll of 6 with Rending doesn't confer AP2, it's only in context of Wounds, or do you disagree with that too?

You can play it how you want, you can read it the way you want. It is reading for advantage and that is your choice. I won't play people who do that. Do what you will.

I don't think I buy that, rending is AP2, period.

ZombieJoe wrote:I don't think I buy that, rending is AP2, period.

Rending rule: (Pg. 41)

For each To Wound
roll of a 6, the target automatically
suffers a Wound, regardless of his
Toughness. These Wounds are resolved
at AP 2.

(Note: This is similar wording for shooting attacks as well)

In either case, against vehicles, each
armour penetration roll of 6 allows a
further D3 to be rolled, with the result
added to the total.

Notice the distinct lack of mentioning AP2 against vehicles?

Kevin949 wrote:It says "allows" because you are not normally allowed to roll anything beyond your standard D6+Str for penetration in CC with standard close combat weapons. It does not say "choose to".

Since when is 'allowing' something equal to 'forcing' something, unless it says something in the trend of 'you're only allowed to...'? If you're allowed to enter someone's house, you still have to option of not entering.

For example, take page 5, Re-rolls:
In some situations, the rules allow you to pick up and re-roll a dice. This is exactly what it sounds like - pick up the dice you wish to re-roll, and roll it again.
Emphasis mine. Here you're allowed to pick up a dice, you're not forced to do it.

Captain Antivas wrote:You can play it how you want, you can read it the way you want. It is reading for advantage and that is your choice. I won't play people who do that. Do what you will.

Please keep the false morality out of the thread, it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Kevin949 wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:I don't think I buy that, rending is AP2, period.

Rending rule: (Pg. 41)

For each To Wound
roll of a 6, the target automatically
suffers a Wound, regardless of his
Toughness. These Wounds are resolved
at AP 2.

(Note: This is similar wording for shooting attacks as well)

In either case, against vehicles, each
armour penetration roll of 6 allows a
further D3 to be rolled, with the result
added to the total.

Notice the distinct lack of mentioning AP2 against vehicles?

I'll need to read it from the book myself later. I just find it hard to believe that this is the case, plus it goes against how I see most people play it. Of course we are still waiting on a FAQ for the main book, hopefully that will be in there. I don't think it's a huge deal if it turns out that rending attacks are not AP2 cause they weren't before. I think what's most likely is the rule was missworded.

Redemption wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:It says "allows" because you are not normally allowed to roll anything beyond your standard D6+Str for penetration in CC with standard close combat weapons. It does not say "choose to".

Since when is 'allowing' something equal to 'forcing' something, unless it says something in the trend of 'you're only allowed to...'? If you're allowed to enter someone's house, you still have to option of not entering.

For example, take page 5, Re-rolls:
In some situations, the rules allow you to pick up and re-roll a dice. This is exactly what it sounds like - pick up the dice you wish to re-roll, and roll it again.
Emphasis mine. Here you're allowed to pick up a dice, you're not forced to do it.

Captain Antivas wrote:You can play it how you want, you can read it the way you want. It is reading for advantage and that is your choice. I won't play people who do that. Do what you will.

Please keep the false morality out of the thread, it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

You are "forced" to roll your Armour Penetration which includes the allowance of 1-3 extra points on a rend. You can read it how you want I suppose, but "allows" in this case is not giving you a choice of whether or not to roll the die. If that was the case, they would have said "may choose to".

BTW, using real world examples is a bad comparison. I'm "allowed" to do a lot of things in real life that I choose not to, but that is because we live in a restrictive rules society and this game is a permissive rules game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:

I'll need to read it from the book myself later. I just find it hard to believe that this is the case, plus it goes against how I see most people play it. Of course we are still waiting on a FAQ for the main book, hopefully that will be in there. I don't think it's a huge deal if it turns out that rending attacks are not AP2 cause they weren't before. I think what's most likely is the rule was missworded.

Believe me, I can see how it could be confusing to read it and think that AP2 is used against vehicles as well. But ya, check it out. I think once you have the book in front of you and read it a couple times you'll see the distinction.

Believe me, I can see how it could be confusing to read it and think that AP2 is used against vehicles as well. But ya, check it out. I think once you have the book in front of you and read it a couple times you'll see the distinction.

As a Nid player I'm used to choking down rules I don't like lol.

False morality, that's funny. Let me ask one question before I duck out of this topic entirely because I know I cannot change your mind about this. If you were assaulting an armor 11 unit could you throw out any d3 roll of 3+ because the rule allows you to add the d3 to the armor penetration roll? Since you can choose to roll you can choose to add it, right?