budro wrote:Shooting is seperate from wounding. It doesn't have to tell you how to wound because the core rulebook already tells you that. The codex specific rules of the SAG misfire tells you what happens, who is hit, the S of the hit, the AP of the hit. Rolling on the misfire chart is a break from the normal shooting sequence - you don't go back to the shooting sequence after rolling on the table, you go to hits and wounds.

budro wrote:You know why it seems confusing? Because it's poorly written. It's not supposed to be poorly written but gamers read it and say,"what about scatter? do we still scatter?" and others say, "why wouldn't you scatter?"

It doesn't make sense when you apply scatter rolls to the results of the table because you're not supposed to. Granted by a RAW reading you do because it doesn't explictly tell you not to. (A)Which is why I asked the author of the book. And he said, "Of course not," and looked at me like I was crazy for asking.(A)
(B)Personally when I read the rules for it, it never occured to me that you would roll for scatter because it never tells you to roll for scatter. The obvious counter to that is that it also never tells you to roll to wound either.(B) Which is a straw-man argument IMO. Shooting is seperate from wounding. It doesn't have to tell you how to wound because the core rulebook already tells you that. The codex specific rules of the SAG misfire tells you what happens, who is hit, the S of the hit, the AP of the hit. Rolling on the misfire chart is a break from the normal shooting sequence - you don't go back to the shooting sequence after rolling on the table, you go to hits and wounds.

(---------second post--------------)

whatever: my point still stands - (C)you don't go back to the "to hit" portion of the shooting sequence once you've already determined whar/where the the shot landed and who got hit (C). You go on to wounds. Which we know how to do because we know the S and AP of the hits.

Tri wrote:
B) BGB tell us how to play unless the codex says differently ... in the '5,6 Bzzap' case we are told that unlike normal (for templates) only the model under the hole is hit. nothing more. All template scatter, so that large blast we're holding will scatter.

Tri wrote:or we listen to you and ignore "...rolling for scatter" in the codex

... also the person allocating the wound chooses where they go so RAW it would matter that way ...

That reminds me ... Last year with the INAT FAQ one of our more controversial rulings revolved around our interpretation of the Lash of Submission.

Phil Kelly was at AdeptiCon. I will start off saying that both Phil and Graham outstanding special guests. Both of them fantastic with our attendees and staff. We ask a number of things of our special guests depending on their role with in GW. Guest judging, playing some games, holding a seminar, etc… and both Phil and Graham handled it all with class.

Phil happened to be on the floor and got called into a Lash of Submission question. He made the call and then proceeded to come over to the main 40K judging table and told us how he called it. Explained his reasoning and was pretty firm about this position. But also was concerned that he was on the same page as the rest of the AdeptiCon rule judges. His call much to my amusement was exactly the way we had called it. So all was good. All the heat, debate, and long hours of discussion on the council to then to be vindicated by one of GW’s lead designers well frankly it felt pretty good.

Sometime after Adepticon, GW updated the Chaos FAQ/Errata and the ruling / position of Lash was completely different . So it was good while it lasted.

I have thought long about that experience. What if Phil Kelly had written the Chaos FAQ instead? Would the GW “Official” word on Lash be different? I think we as fans and players tend to think of the GW Studio as some oracle on high .. that hands down 40K rulings with the certainty of the ten commandments, everything in lock step agreement. When the reality is there is probably as much disagreement and play differences among the studio as there is within the GW community. With 5th edition we are still dealing with books written and influenced by people now long gone from the company ( Andy Chambers, Pete Haines, Gav Thorpe, ) … new faces are in the studio and working on books. All putting their mark on the games we play. But there has not been a consistent language/terminology/guidance across all the works. Jervis’s vision of 40K is greatly different that Andy’s. It has been made clear to me they are not interested in writing rules to support a tourney environment.

Tri wrote:... ok before rolling for scatter ...

)place template
)roll a 5 & 6 str
)Bzzap only the modle under the hole is hit
)and then roll for scatter ... hit (2/6) it stay put other wise it scatters 2d6-BS
)if 2 models are under the hole when it stops then we enter no mans land ... i say both would be hit, RAW says only one ... who evers hit it doesn't realy matter wounds are placed and removed by the other player

you can complain about it not making sence or what ever but nothing in the Bzzap rules stops the scatter ... in fact none of the effects in that chart stop the scatter they only stop the shot

yakface wrote:

There is just no distinction in the rules saying that you skip over the roll 'to hit' and then jump back into the sequence of shooting, because determining who is hit by a blast is not the same thing as rolling 'to hit' with a blast. Yes 5,6 tells us who is hit by the blast (the model under the center hole) but it does not give players the option to ignore the 'to hit' roll.

sourclams wrote:Although I applaud your semantics trap and its brilliant execution ;D, clearly Yakface intended to refer to the scatter roll instead of his ill-quoted "'to hit' roll".

Webbe wrote:I agree with Yak.

Still the 5, 6 result is troublesome. It says "the model under the template hole is hit", not any model or something similar.
If it scatters there can very well be two models under the template hole, the rules say nothing about that.
This seem to indicate that a 5, 6 result is not meant to scatter.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:That's right, fullheadofhair.

Because we follow the table result before rolling for scatter - and the table result very clearly tells us that the model under the marker hole is hit. At this point we have not scattered, but we already know what is hit.

We could scatter the marker if we want, but we already know which model is hit. This is exactly how the specifics in the codex ("the model...is hit") override the generalities in the rulebook (all that stuff about scattering the marker).

Boss Ardnutz wrote:That's right, fullheadofhair.

Because we follow the table result before rolling for scatter - and the table result very clearly tells us that the model under the marker hole is hit. At this point we have not scattered, but we already know what is hit.

We could scatter the marker if we want, but we already know which model is hit. This is exactly how the specifics in the codex ("the model...is hit") override the generalities in the rulebook (all that stuff about scattering the marker).