Switch Theme:

Rules taken out of context  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control




Australia

I don't know whether this topic is appropriate so i appologise if it is and I'll understand if it gets locked.

I'm after rules in the rulebook that if taken out of context, can have an effect on how the game is played. If the rule is quoted by itself, it appears to say something different that if it is quoted in context.

109/20/22 w/d/l
Tournament: 25/5/5 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Murfreesboro, TN

Too many to list.

As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.

But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club 
   
Made in au
Horrific Howling Banshee





Guys, The question that Onlainari meant to ask what is the arguement against the following; in close combat, hits against a mobile skimmer always counts as glancing

For fellow Dakkites, here is my argument that mobile skimmers in close combat count all hits as glancings,

BGB, Page 71, under Hits, second last paragraph
"A Skimmer that is not immobilised always counts as moving more than 6" in its last turn"

BGB, Page 69, 'Skimmers moving fast'
"Any hits that beat the Armour Value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in its last turn count as glancing hits rather than Penetrating hits."

There is an ongoing debate on another forumn that has spilled over here onto Dakka, for that I apologise.
   
Made in nz
Regular Dakkanaut






The argument was debated in the following thread about a month ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=27400&view=topic

40k Combat Calculator

http://mathhammer.thefieldsofblood.com/

I came...
I saw...
I sent out for latte!!!

My General KOW Fantasy & 40k Blog - http://www.thefieldsofblood.com/ 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control




Australia

Posted By yakface on 11/14/2005 4:15 AM

You cannot take a single sentence out of context from the rulebook and attempt to apply it to the game as a whole.

Believe me, if you want me to start to take random sentences out of the rulebook and make some wacky idiotic arguments up, I can gladly do that.

Just doing what I can to beat ÆON, he's got this arrogance about him, I probably do too, anyway I just wanted to be right.

109/20/22 w/d/l
Tournament: 25/5/5 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Eye of Terror

"BGB, Page 69, 'Skimmers moving fast' "Any hits that beat the Armour Value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in its last turn count as glancing hits rather than Penetrating hits.""

This appears under the subsection entitled Shooting. Their is another subsection for assaulting skimmers, and it does not appear there.

Loved by many!!! Don't you know it too! Heh. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






So?

It still applies. If you're claiming that only rules in the assault section apply in assault, need I remind you AGAIN that the damage tables are in the shooting section. Are you saying they don't apply in assault either?


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




iowa

i thought this was cleared up in the most recent eldar FAQ.

When I'm in power, here's how I'm gonna put the country back on its feet. I'm going to put sterilizing agents in the following products: Sunny Delight, Mountain Dew, and Thick-Crust Pizza. Only the 'tardiest of the 'tards like the thick crust. 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

Of course they don't apply. Vehicles can't be damaged in assault, duh.

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

The 4th Ed Eldar FAQ (released almost a year and a half ago now) makes it clear. ANYTHING that would normally penetrate a Skimmer Moving Fast is reduced to a Glance.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control




Australia

It seems it doesn't matter where I go, people think I'm arguing about whether skimmers get the SMF rule in close combat.

That is not the argument. Let me rephrase, the Eldar FAQ does not help in the argument.

The argument is whether the line on page 71 means skimmers can never be penetrated (including monolith), as they always count as moving more than 6" in its previous turn, and therefore benefit from the SMF rule. I don't think this is right, but ÆON won't agree with my argument.

109/20/22 w/d/l
Tournament: 25/5/5 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut






Posted By BloodyT on 03/13/2006 7:40 AM
"BGB, Page 69, 'Skimmers moving fast' "Any hits that beat the Armour Value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in its last turn count as glancing hits rather than Penetrating hits.""

This appears under the subsection entitled Shooting. Their is another subsection for assaulting skimmers, and it does not appear there.


This does not appear under the section entitled Vehicles and shooting but under the section called skimmer moving fast.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Posted By onlainari on 03/13/2006 8:34 PM
It seems it doesn't matter where I go, people think I'm arguing about whether skimmers get the SMF rule in close combat.

That is not the argument. Let me rephrase, the Eldar FAQ does not help in the argument.

The argument is whether the line on page 71 means skimmers can never be penetrated (including monolith), as they always count as moving more than 6" in its previous turn, and therefore benefit from the SMF rule. I don't think this is right, but ÆON won't agree with my argument.



P1. Skimmers moving over 6" a turn can not be penetrated

P2. Skimmers always count as moving over 6" in hth.

Conclusion: you can't pen skimmers in hth.

Seems pretty darn unambiguous to me.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control




Australia

I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules that make up P2.

Page 71 BGB: "A skimmer that is not immobilised always counts as moving more than 6" in its previous turn."

By itself, it seems you can't even penetrate a skimmer (eg monolith) with shooting attacks.

Taken into context, you've concluded it's only refering to hth.

Page 71 BGB: "Armour Penetration is worked out as normal".

I interpret that line as saying the first rule is only refering to hitting a skimmer in hth.

My P2 would be: P2. Mobile skimmers always count as moving over 6" in hth when hitting them.

109/20/22 w/d/l
Tournament: 25/5/5 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

Posted By mauleed on 03/13/2006 10:14 PM


P1. Skimmers moving over 6" a turn can not be penetrated

P2. Skimmers always count as moving over 6" in hth.

Conclusion: you can't pen skimmers in hth.

Seems pretty darn unambiguous to me.


 

P1 is incomplete. Skimmers must physically move more than 6" in the previous movement phase to utilize the "skimmers moving fast rule".

Nothing in premise 2 (or in the hitting a vehicle in close combat section) states that skimmers always count as physically moving more than 6".

Remember that by the rules it is entirely possible for a vehicle to move 12" (for example) and still end up in the same physical spot. In this case the "skimmers moving fast" requirement for having moved more than 6" in total displacement would not have been met.

So a skimmer in combat can always count as having moved more than 6", but unless it has physically moved more than 6" in the previous movement phase it is not getting the "skimmers moving fast" bonus.

The debate is over. Seriously. 

 

P.S. I made this exact same point at the end of the thread that was linked in this thread. Its good to see that I've been ignored. 
 


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Thank you Yak.

You should have some sort of special color or symbol when you post the straight dope, particularly at the end of a long thread.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





All this talk of penetration is giving me the horn...
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

Maule, is this usually the way it is played in GTs? (Glancing-only in CC, that is.) I was in a recent tourney with a Patrick Vetter, who claims to be a GT veteran that's attended baltimore, and he claims it's never been played that way. Not wanting to rez a useless thread, but the guy was a donkey when it came to that rule.

WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


Dude! READ MY POST Sonefox.


Jesus christ people. Even when a thread has a clear answer people want to choose to ignore it.





I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Posted By stonefox on 03/16/2006 1:28 AM
Maule, is this usually the way it is played in GTs? (Glancing-only in CC, that is.) I was in a recent tourney with a Patrick Vetter, who claims to be a GT veteran that's attended baltimore, and he claims it's never been played that way. Not wanting to rez a useless thread, but the guy was a donkey when it came to that rule.



Well, as Yak has pointed out, the esteemed Mr. Vetter is incorrect.

I don't doubt that it isn't played that way in games he's in, but clearly it's not what the rules say.

Mr. Vetter plays Khorne Daemons, correct? So I can see why he would be rather insistant things be played contrary to the rules on this point.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

Indeed, he was playing world eaters demonbomb. Thanks for the clarification, though I know that is the correct ruling. I was merely asking for how it is normally played in GTs. Eh, no matter. I'll make sure to add it to my list of questions to ask the head judge before a tourney.

WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Well, I'll say this, I'd likely zero the sports score of any player that insisted he could pen a skimmer that moved over 6" last turn. And I'd tell him I was doing it.

Just because a tournament judge happens to be equally ignorant of a rule shouldn't protect the guy from the bad sports score he earned.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Whorelando, FL

I agree with Ed. If this guy was being a weine about it I'd have dropped the sportmanship score as well since it is pretty cut and dry on how it works. It's like that judge in Tampa that said you had to deploy your transported squad either inside the rhino or beside when you deploy. "You can't deploy the rhino on one side of the board and then the squad on the other side. It doesn't make sense. To do so would be cheating." I laughed and said "Sorry sir, but you are wrong and nothing in the rules says anything to support your ruling." Sometimes the judges are wrong and make lame calls. Capt K

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The important thing is that when you catch a judge adamantly making a bad call you retell the story often and use names. It's important that we make sure crappy judges are subject to public ridicule.

However, it's important not to get too worked up about people that aren't adamant about an issue. The rules are crap, so when people aren't sure, it's understandable. But if you are "sure" and surely wrong, you should be called on it in less than pleasant terms.

So I never knock a judge that says he's not really sure, but has to make a ruling anyway.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: