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.

Howdy Dakka!

Quick inquiry for you. I was mulling over the Ork Codex and was wondering something about Zzap Guns.

Notably, the codex states that anytime a Zzap gun inflicts a glancing or penetrating hit on a vehicle, the vehicle shot suffers a "Crew Shaken" result in addition to the regular result.

Does this mean that the vehicle in question loses 1 (from the glance/pen) or 2 (from the glance/pen + the crew shaken result) Hull Points as a result?

My main confusion comes from other damage results also causing lost hull points as well (i.e. Vehicle Immob on terrain, etc).

Thoughts?

Unless there's an FAQ on the Zzap gun saying it does cause an additional HP loss, I'd say that it does not cause an additional HP loss as suffering the result itself does not constitute losing a Hull Point.

This kinda reminds me of the drop pod debate.

Also, vehicle immobilization was FAQ'd to add that HP loss. So far, that's the "only" other way to lose an HP outside of a glance/pen hit.

Actually, it was FAQed to include the HP loss.
I'd say that there's 2 HP lost, definitely by Intent and I've made a similar argument for as Written.

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, it was FAQed to include the HP loss.
I'd say that there's 2 HP lost, definitely by Intent and I've made a similar argument for as Written.

Oh? Interesting...

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, it was FAQed to include the HP loss.
I'd say that there's 2 HP lost, definitely by Intent and I've made a similar argument for as Written.

I just did a quick search through the ork faq, and zzap gun v. hull points is not mentioned.

Since the Ork 'dex was made for 4th ed(?), and there were no hull points at that time, there's nothing to indicate that it causes two hull point losses per pen/glance. No other weapon does this, so it would definitively warrant a separate entry for this case.

 SgtSixkilla wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, it was FAQed to include the HP loss.
I'd say that there's 2 HP lost, definitely by Intent and I've made a similar argument for as Written.

I just did a quick search through the ork faq, and zzap gun v. hull points is not mentioned.

Since the Ork 'dex was made for 4th ed(?), and there were no hull points at that time, there's nothing to indicate that it causes two hull point losses per pen/glance. No other weapon does this, so it would definitively warrant a separate entry for this case.

I was addressing Kevin949's statement that they "added" a HP loss to the immobilize in difficult terrain. They didn't add it, they included it.

Soz. My bad.

Still. I wouldn't say the zzap gun takes 2 HP on pen/glance. And I say this even though I have included zzap guns in my new ork army.

rigeld2 wrote:

 SgtSixkilla wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, it was FAQed to include the HP loss.
I'd say that there's 2 HP lost, definitely by Intent and I've made a similar argument for as Written.

I just did a quick search through the ork faq, and zzap gun v. hull points is not mentioned.

Since the Ork 'dex was made for 4th ed(?), and there were no hull points at that time, there's nothing to indicate that it causes two hull point losses per pen/glance. No other weapon does this, so it would definitively warrant a separate entry for this case.

I was addressing Kevin949's statement that they "added" a HP loss to the immobilize in difficult terrain. They didn't add it, they included it.

Oh, I thought you were saying they FAQ'd the zzap gun.

So, you're seriously saying there's a difference between add and include? I know the FAQ uses the word "including", but they ADDED that to the rule. *Shrug*

Yes, add is in addition to. Include is part of. Therefore the hull point loss is part of the immobilize.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, add is in addition to. Include is part of. Therefore the hull point loss is part of the immobilize.

Not to get in a semantics war, but "add" does actually mean the same thing as "include". Or more so, it's a synonym of "include".

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, add is in addition to. Include is part of. Therefore the hull point loss is part of the immobilize.

Not to get in a semantics war, but "add" does actually mean the same thing as "include". Or more so, it's a synonym of "include".

https://www.google.com/search?q=define:+add
https://www.google.com/search?q=define:+include

Synonyms are nearly the same, not always exactly the same. In this case they are not interchangeable. Perhaps start a new thread with the relevant FAQ?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, add is in addition to. Include is part of. Therefore the hull point loss is part of the immobilize.

Not to get in a semantics war, but "add" does actually mean the same thing as "include". Or more so, it's a synonym of "include".

https://www.google.com/search?q=define:+add
https://www.google.com/search?q=define:+include

Synonyms are nearly the same, not always exactly the same. In this case they are not interchangeable. Perhaps start a new thread with the relevant FAQ?

No, I'm good... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/add

Yeah, if you ignore the first 3 definition, and ignore the context of the FAQ, and ignore how you used the word "add" in your original post, you could appear correct.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, if you ignore the first 3 definition, and ignore the context of the FAQ, and ignore how you used the word "add" in your original post, you could appear correct.

Amazing how one word does have multiple definitions to suit different needs and necessary by context. Also note, the definitions are not in any kind of order (as you seem to incorrectly believe).

You simply enjoy nitpicking semantic arguments to appear to be all-knowing and better than others.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, if you ignore the first 3 definition, and ignore the context of the FAQ, and ignore how you used the word "add" in your original post, you could appear correct.

Amazing how one word does have multiple definitions to suit different needs and necessary by context. Also note, the definitions are not in any kind of order (as you seem to incorrectly believe).

I was told otherwise (long long ago, and its probably about as reliable a source as Wikipedia) - that is was ordered by most common usage of the word.
And yes, I know you have to use context - I even mentioned that in the post I quoted. Did you ignore everything after the first comma?

You simply enjoy nitpicking semantic arguments to appear to be all-knowing and better than others.

No, I enjoy nitpicking semantic arguments. The fact that you assign negative connotations to that is your problem, not mine.

Dictionary is most common usage first. They retire old words and old unused meanings.

If I have two apples, including one red apple, how many apples do I have?

Hint the answer is not 3. If you replace including with adding that changes the meaning of the sentence completely.