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.

I stopped reading the thread about half way down the page. Regardless of what this actual topic is, why would you ask for a poll to get peoples' opinions and then argue with them when they didn't agree with yours? That seems a little counter-productive to me.

My two cents.

Asmodeus wrote:I stopped reading the thread about half way down the page. Regardless of what this actual topic is, why would you ask for a poll to get peoples' opinions and then argue with them when they didn't agree with yours? That seems a little counter-productive to me.

My two cents.

I started the poll and I haven't been arguing with anyone. I mean, I'd prefer if people didn't argue about what the RAW say in this situation as the point of the thread isn't about what the rules say but rather how you play it. But you know what they say: boys will be boys.

insaniak wrote:Or that if you're a peacock, the rule doesn't apply to you in the first place. Your rule can simply be taken to mean that, out of Chickens and Ostriches, only chickens can cross the road.

This here is a perfect example of how few people are capable of understanding a simple logical argument. If the rule states "Only chickens may cross the road." then only those things that are chickens can cross. Adding the text "Ostriches may not cross." is unnecessary and irrelevant. We already know that ostriches cannot cross as they are not chickens. We also know that peacocks cannot cross as they are also not chickens. We also know dogs, cats, pigs, horses, and 50 ton main battle tanks cannot cross the road because they are not members of the set "chicken". Any other interpretation of the rules is a sign of incompetence or deliberate misunderstanding.

well... i will also post here my two euro-cents....

...all daemonhunters codex trasnlations that i can reach (the french and spanish ones) do translate the psycanon entry DELETING the ofending sentence (only armour saves bla bla bla)... it just specify that no invulnerable saves may be taken...

This clearly define for me the RAI about this waepon...

I don't usually support RAI, but in this case it matches the RAW out of usa or uk. So for me, and for all spanish and french players B is the proper way to play

-------------------------correction!!!!!!!!!!----------------------------------

i reviewed again my two version of the codex and the frenchy one matches the origal english, not the spanish....

so... gak... are we, poor spaniards, the only one not enjoying the only cover anulation weapon in the game?

in spanish
http://es.games-workshop.com/warhammer40k/pdf/demonhunters_p16-19.pdf
"Nota: no se pueden efectuar tiradas de salvación invulnerable contra esta arma."

in frech (you need to join their GW community to download this file)
http://fr.games-workshop.com/telechargement/warhammer40000/jeu/ordo_malleus_codex.pdf
"Note: Seules les sauvegardes d’armures peuvent être tentées contre un psycanon, les sauvegardes invulnérables sont quant à elles annulées."


still think RAI is B

Buoyancy wrote:This here is a perfect example of how few people are capable of understanding a simple logical argument.

Or, if you want to be a little less insulting, simply an example of the eccenticities of the english language.

But repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to convince either side, and I'm not interested in debating English semantics.


Besides, Yakface wasn't after a RAW discussion here, so we're all being naughty and should take it elsewhere.

Buoyancy wrote:

insaniak wrote:Or that if you're a peacock, the rule doesn't apply to you in the first place. Your rule can simply be taken to mean that, out of Chickens and Ostriches, only chickens can cross the road.

This here is a perfect example of how few people are capable of understanding a simple logical argument. If the rule states "Only chickens may cross the road." then only those things that are chickens can cross. Adding the text "Ostriches may not cross." is unnecessary and irrelevant. We already know that ostriches cannot cross as they are not chickens. We also know that peacocks cannot cross as they are also not chickens. We also know dogs, cats, pigs, horses, and 50 ton main battle tanks cannot cross the road because they are not members of the set "chicken". Any other interpretation of the rules is a sign of incompetence or deliberate misunderstanding.

Buoyancy, I agree with you based on the US printing of the codex. It would be nice if Psycannons worked that way, and by that codex and the RAW they should. However, the fact that the vehicle upgrade for psycannon bolts specifies "armor and cover saves may be taken," and the clarification of the non-english codex printings that "removes that offending phrase," as one poster put it, makes me comfortable with their ruling. As a sportsman, I usually just play the less advantageous way, even though the RAW supports something else entirely. I should have voted "C," however, because some of my gaming buddies who know about the issue don't care if we play by the RAW, and I've played that way as well. It was nice to get more benefit from my 25 point heavy weapons...

insaniak wrote:Or, if you want to be a little less insulting, simply an example of the eccenticities of the english language.

But repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to convince either side, and I'm not interested in debating English semantics.

I'm not aiming to convince you, that's quite impossible since you apparently aren't interested in learning how to interpret english statements according to the basic rules of logic. I'm simply aiming to convince those people who are willing to learn.

Buoyancy wrote:I'm not aiming to convince you, that's quite impossible since you apparently aren't interested in learning how to interpret english statements according to the basic rules of logic.

Well, of course I'm not.
I'm also not interested in learning how to walk, or do short division.

My lack of knowledge of the english language is so great that the fact that I agreed that the 'only' trumping the second sentence was one of the possible RAW interpretations back on page 2 was a complete fluke, resulting from me just mashing keys with my fists in between grunting aimlessly and watching Baywatch reruns.

You may not agree that there's more than one way to read that paragraph. That's fine. Won't affect my game in the slightest. Nor will it affect the results of the poll, which wasn't actually concerned with what the rules say anyway.

only armor save means only armor saves. i don't think it was intended, and i certainly don't like it as applied to bikes, but it's clear as day.

of course if my grey knight opponent wants to let me take my cover saves with my scarabs (only unit i have that this applies to) then i don't have a problem with that, but i'm certainly not going to tell him he can't play his gun the way the rules state he can just because it's silly.

similarly, if i were to field sammael on his bike i'd like to fire both weapons the way he was designed and playtested, but the rules don't allow it, so i won't.

I'm going with GW's reference sheet on this one. Ignores invulnerable only.

my $0.02

fullheadofhair wrote:You have the two different weapons (vehicle/ pyscannon) firing exactly the same round.

Yeah, like Krak from ML and GL. Oops.

BTW, I voted "A", because the word "only" precludes cover saves.