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.

Not liking what the RAW, or not agreeing with it does not change the RAW any more than it changes the RAI.

Sure, you can play it other than what is written. But if you somehow fall into thinking doing so is because you are in the right, it will cause you problems when playing at a tourney or with new folks.

At least if you follow the rules, you have evidence to back you when questioned as to why. It goes over better with a new opponent to say "Here is the page that allows this" instead of "I do not agree with that rule so it does not work that way."


(And specific trumps general is a common mantra that allows games from Monopoly to Warhammer to Magic to function.)

Ascalam wrote:There's a poll over on Waagh also on this issue:

http://www.the-waaagh.com/forums/?showtopic=48400

Ok, so now logically we're saying that your landraider got sucked into a black hole, but you're fine while standing IN that black hole? And they called my logic bad!

Believe what you want I'll step down from this one, due to an overdose of testosterone and vitriol building up in the thread. I'll be interested to see where it goes though

LOL, it's quite sad that you still seem to be like a lost sheep, and on a different frequency from everyone here.

If you were to argue by logic, a 10 year old boy could come up to you and say :

"The SAG is an erratic weapon, and the different results on the table is to represent this. When you roll 6,6, it is as if the gun just fired a magical shot that will make everything in the path of it's projectile disappear"

Now this boy has HIS logic to back up his approach, and are you going to say he is just spewing nonsense? What makes you think YOUR logic is more correct than his?

By playing according to RAW, you avoid this problem.

No one's logic, especially in the realm of 40k, can ever be more logical than others. I might even think FNP is not logical at all. Butwho am I to challenge that? Despite it being contrary to MY common sense/logic, I have to play as it is because the rulebook dictates how it is played.

Frankly, you are definitely someone I will not want to play with . I could imagine how painful it will be when we are in the midst of a game, and you start challenging all the logic of my approach and refuse to play by what is written in the rulebook. We will end up spending like 4 hours discussing and agreeing what SHOULD be the common sense approach.

Alright, as fun as this thread could be we need less of TFG stuff and to play the game and have fun.

RAW? I don't give a damn, the ork codex states that any model is removed from play, followed by another sentence that states that vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit. Logic dictates that since it states what happens to vehicles, then the effects don't apply to both since it doesn't give any indication that you can combine the effects, argue however you want but be aware that arguing one way is going to make people not want to play with you.

If you wanna play by RAW boys then I'll start calling out the fact that you need eyes to shoot and other stuff that isn't very mannered to do.

striderx wrote:

Ascalam wrote:There's a poll over on Waagh also on this issue:

http://www.the-waaagh.com/forums/?showtopic=48400

Ok, so now logically we're saying that your landraider got sucked into a black hole, but you're fine while standing IN that black hole? And they called my logic bad!

Believe what you want I'll step down from this one, due to an overdose of testosterone and vitriol building up in the thread. I'll be interested to see where it goes though

LOL, it's quite sad that you still seem to be like a lost sheep, and on a different frequency from everyone here.

If you were to argue by logic, a 10 year old boy could come up to you and say :

"The SAG is an erratic weapon, and the different results on the table is to represent this. When you roll 6,6, it is as if the gun just fired a magical shot that will make everything in the path of it's projectile disappear"

Now this boy has HIS logic to back up his approach, and are you going to say he is just spewing nonsense? What makes you think YOUR logic is more correct than his?

By playing according to RAW, you avoid this problem.

No one's logic, especially in the realm of 40k, can ever be more logical than others. I might even think FNP is not logical at all. Butwho am I to challenge that? Despite it being contrary to MY common sense/logic, I have to play as it is because the rulebook dictates how it is played.

Frankly, you are definitely someone I will not want to play with . I could imagine how painful it will be when we are in the midst of a game, and you start challenging all the logic of my approach and refuse to play by what is written in the rulebook. We will end up spending like 4 hours discussing and agreeing what SHOULD be the common sense approach.

LOL we are channeling hypothetical children to help us decide!

ultimately if i was playing AGAINST a SAG and my opponent wanted to remove a vehical as per RAW, i woulnt spend long trying to convince them otherwise. mostly because its a game and if your not having fun then what is the point - its 6 6 only - so not in anyway OP, but also because there is RAW there to back up your argument so there isnt much to be said.

when i play WITH the SAG though i would go with what is my and everyone and my clubs opinion of what the rule means (and my suspicion is that most players would think just pen) - which isn't a problem because i'm the one thats loosing out as the ork...

forum environments appear breed technical correctness as higher than what makes sense/ seems to be intended, which is natural but in a friendly gaming environment it tends to be the other way around. I have never been to a tournament but all the references to them made thus far seem to have been that its just a pen not a remove for vehicles as the TO ruling, if thats right then we have kind of covered both the common gaming situations and - even if anecdotally - i draw the conclusion that pen only is the consensus for each.

and consensus/most peoples interpretation is important before you say it isn't, even in the law making of whole countries it is important! my girlfriend studies law and my god the whole thing is interpretation and consensus - what is a jury system if not one of interpretation and consensus!

perhaps not relevant but its a point of view at least. as long as everyone playing is happy and enjoying the game then who cares!

im not knocking RAW but just trying to throw a bit of credibility behind the importance of trying to interpret correctly and not just following the 40k bible to the letter all the time. im not trying to be holier-than-thou, everyone reading will make their decision as to which seems right and i think this debate has got to the end of its life now unless we want to loop ourselves round till the end of time (or the end of the current ork codex at least )

juraigamer wrote:Logic dictates . . .nothing like what was written here

Logic dictates that vehiclular models are affected by things that affect vehicles and things that affect models.

juraigamer wrote:If you wanna play by RAW boys then I'll start calling out the fact that you need eyes to shoot and other stuff that isn't very mannered to do.

There is already a thread for that.

Ascalam: I feel for ya man, your argument is fine, you already made your separation from how you would play and the RAW argument at hand. People are nit picking at nothing here, sure we could all just agree to disagree but forcibly changing your mind seems to be the way the thread has turned.

Good luck with it...

While it's not going to change anyone's mind, I personally thought it was obvious that the rule meant for infantry/MCs etc to be removed and vehicles to take a hit instead, but that's just my opinion.

On another note, if we are playing it RAW and if my thinking is correct then the vehicle must take, if applicable, a cover save to prevent the penetrating hit even if this could deny it's passengers a chance at getting out of the vehicle before it is removed?

striderx wrote:

Backfire wrote:Don't you think it's telling that vehicles, which have such an important role in the game, are not mentioned in the definition?

No, I didnt think so, just like I didnt felt weird that they quoted orks, marines, and eldar, but not necrons, daemons, or Tau.

That's not the same thing at all.

striderx wrote:

Backfire wrote: there are examples where it is obvious that 'models' excludes vehicles.

Again, quote the sources for us. Don't leave things hanging halfway.

Well, for example, if you read the Kill Team rules (from Battle Missions), various wackiness results if the "models" referred in the rules include vehicles.

I will also note that whilst there are weapons which do inflict different damage results at the same time, they are also always very explicit stating so - for example, Thunder Hammer rules don't say "Against vehicles they inflict 'crew shaken' result".

Backfire wrote:Well, for example, if you read the Kill Team rules (from Battle Missions), various wackiness results if the "models" referred in the rules include vehicles.

I left that book at home, but doesn't it already exclude vehicles from that mission? Meaning the disparity in terms was specifically addressed?

kirsanth wrote:

Backfire wrote:Well, for example, if you read the Kill Team rules (from Battle Missions), various wackiness results if the "models" referred in the rules include vehicles.

I left that book at home, but doesn't it already exclude vehicles from that mission? Meaning the disparity in terms was specifically addressed?

No, it does not, though the rules seem to assume so, and vehicles probably aren't terribly useful in that mission anyway.

Backfire wrote:No, it does not, though the rules seem to assume so, and vehicles probably aren't terribly useful in that mission anyway.

Then what wackiness do you refer to? Not to disparage your assertion, but could you give an example? I do not recall it being strange. . . .

The problem with RAW, is that sometimes situations like this xrop up and divide the gaming public. I genuinely think vehicles should only take a penetrating hit, otherwise there would be no point in it being specifically mentioned in the shokk attack gun entry.

In fact now that I recall, this ties in nicely with a recent debate about JOTWW and wound allocation. In that debate, the main argument was whether a unit that suffered JOTWW casualties and shooting wounds simultaneously could allocate wounds to "removed models". I'm not sure what the outcome was, but its the same scenario here. If the "removal" happens first, then there would be no penetrating hit. If the penetrating hit wrecks the vehicle, there can be no removal of models.

This is of course assuming that the vehicle suffers both results (which I think is incorrect).

There's no precedent for these sorts of things, not in the BRB anyway. See if you can find the.JOTWW thread I describe and you'll see what I mean. (Currently on mobile )

Edit: link. To thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/341834.page

liam0404 wrote:The problem with RAW, is that sometimes situations like this xrop up and divide the gaming public. I genuinely think vehicles should only take a penetrating hit, otherwise there would be no point in it being specifically mentioned in the shokk attack gun entry.

Yes there would, namely being able to explode and harm surrounding models, and giving passengers a chance to get out.

striderx wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:
Do you also insist that monstrous creatures can shoot in your opponents shooting phase and models without eyes cant fire?

Then explain how you would come to that conclusion. Explain it well and I may probably be impressed.

The BRB says to draw line of sight from the eyes of the model. Thus, if it has no eyes it cannot draw line of sight and therefore cannot fire. Take that wraithlords.
The BRB says that in the shooting phase a monstrous creature may fire two weapons. It never states which shooting phase.

Wasn't there an entire thread poking fun at RAW? this whole SAG issue was in their - included because the RAW on it is mockable. Plus I defiantly see more people agreeing with the RAI interpretation within this thread now.

juraigamer wrote:Logic dictates that since it states what happens to vehicles, then the effects don't apply to both since it doesn't give any indication that you can combine the effects,

And didnt we present our logic as well? So what makes you think YOUR logic is more correct than ours? Just because YOUR MIND thinks it's more logical, our brains have to function the same way as yours?

juraigamer wrote:argue however you want but be aware that arguing one way is going to make people not want to play with you.

My experience tells me that the unpopular people are often those who refuse to play by the rules and argue logic of their own.

arkapello wrote:ultimately if i was playing AGAINST a SAG and my opponent wanted to remove a vehical as per RAW, i woulnt spend long trying to convince them otherwise. mostly because its a game and if your not having fun then what is the point - its 6 6 only - so not in anyway OP, but also because there is RAW there to back up your argument so there isnt much to be said.

Well, me too. If my opponent discuss this with me before the game starts, I will tell him to decide how he want to play it, but at least we have a consensus before the game starts. But if the discussion was not brought up, the my DEFAULT understanding will be that we play by RAW. So does that make me a WAAC ?

arkapello wrote:and consensus/most peoples interpretation is important before you say it isn't, even in the law making of whole countries it is important! my girlfriend studies law and my god the whole thing is interpretation and consensus - what is a jury system if not one of interpretation and consensus!

So how do you suggest we find out what is the consensus? From a bias sample via a poll? Or from the whole population of 40k players in the world???

So, basically, the argument falls into two sides:

Side a) Obviously it lists both effects so that any models theoretically embarked inside the vehicle get a chance of disembarking if the vehicle is destroyed, at which point they appear unscathed while the vehicle magically disappears around them, or so that there's a one in six chance of causing an S3 AP- hit on anything an average of 3" away!

Side b) It should be read as "(Non-vehicle) Models are... Vehicles take a penetrating hit."

One of these is convoluted and without precedent, the other is simple, makes sense within the context of the game, and is the reading implied by general English grammar and rhetorical convention.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Side b) It should be read as "(Non-vehicle) Models are

Wrong.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:implied by general English grammar and rhetorical convention.

Care to explain what is your "general English grammar and rhetorical convention" ? To me, that's reading and interpreting what is written. Unless one can't interpret "Remove all models ... ... " ?

As much as I hate to do this, maybe this will shed some light on things:

Q. Are models that are immune to instant death
(such as those with eternal warrior) removed
from the table when hit by a Shokk Attack Gun
which rolls a “Raargh” result?
A. Yes, unless they are gargantuan creatures or
super-heavy vehicles (see the Apocalypse book).

I know nothing about Apocalypse, but are super-heavies treated like vehicles and follow their rules, except when specified?

This FAQ implies that vehicles would be subject to the "remove from play" effect, because they had to specify that super-heavies were not affected. At least, it implies it as much as the Ork Codex implies that vehicles are unaffected.

I don't like it, but that's what I'd rule.

The sentence about pentrating hits is unnecessary (and it's not strengthening any side of the argument to argue otherwise).

The sentence about penetrating hits is not frivolous, it gives potential passengers of hit vehicles a chance to leap free of the 'ravening cloud of sentient deamonic ichor' as it gushed out into the material relm


What becomes really fun is if the two sentences are 'separate' and were intended to have different effects then every vehicle on the board would be hit.
After all, "Vehicles take a penetrating hit." makes no mention of being under or hit by the shot, it is valid if one want to say "SAG is crazy hey man on a roll of 6,6 not only does it remove all models from under it, all vehicles take a penetrating hit, I blew up two russes, a speeder, three trukks and a BW!!!"

ChrisCP wrote:
What becomes really fun is if the two sentences are 'separate' and were intended to have different effects then every vehicle on the board would be hit.
After all, "Vehicles take a penetrating hit." makes no mention of being under or hit by the shot, it is valid if one want to say "SAG is crazy hey man on a roll of 6,6 not only does it remove all models from under it, all vehicles take a penetrating hit, I blew up two russes, a speeder, three trukks and a BW!!!"

Crap, now that you mention it, can I actually adopt this approach?
I mean, is there anything that is stopping me from reading the 2nd sentence "vehs take a ... ... " separately?

I never said it was frivolous, I said it was unnecessary. Meaning, it was not needed. Meaning, if they had left it out, it would not have changed enough to have a significant effect. Meaning, if they had left it out, we wouldn't have 3 pages of discussion on this, there wouldn't be old topics without resolution, and I wouldn't have needed to quote an FAQ ruling that only talks about Apocalypse.

I know very well what can happen with a penetrating hit (I have been reading this thread, after all...)

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:So, basically, the argument falls into two sides:

Side a) Obviously it lists both effects so that any models theoretically embarked inside the vehicle get a chance of disembarking if the vehicle is destroyed, at which point they appear unscathed while the vehicle magically disappears around them, or so that there's a one in six chance of causing an S3 AP- hit on anything an average of 3" away!

Side b) It should be read as "(Non-vehicle) Models are... Vehicles take a penetrating hit."

One of these is convoluted and without precedent, the other is simple, makes sense within the context of the game, and is the reading implied by general English grammar and rhetorical convention.

Yup, you have rule a, commonly argued by people that want to WAAC, and rule b, for intelligent people. We should really stop trying to take the fun outta the game to this extent guys, play and enjoy.

ChrisCP wrote:
The sentence about penetrating hits is not frivolous, it gives potential passengers of hit vehicles a chance to leap free of the 'ravening cloud of sentient deamonic ichor' as it gushed out into the material relm


What becomes really fun is if the two sentences are 'separate' and were intended to have different effects then every vehicle on the board would be hit.
After all, "Vehicles take a penetrating hit." makes no mention of being under or hit by the shot, it is valid if one want to say "SAG is crazy hey man on a roll of 6,6 not only does it remove all models from under it, all vehicles take a penetrating hit, I blew up two russes, a speeder, three trukks and a BW!!!"

thats the argument AGAINST it removing vehicles from play, RAW do say you hit all vehicles - it doesn't say just under the template. thats wrong, no one actually does that right? right, we INTERPRET it as referring to vehicles under template. so you have already imposed an interpretation on the written rules because it made more sense. you don't have a problem with doing it once - do it again, vehicles only take a pen. seems to make more sense and explains why they would bother with the penetrating hit being within the explanation of what should happen. If GW wanted there to be a way for the vehicle to get removed from play but still give the passengers a chance to disembark they have truly gone about it in the most oddball/obscure way possible and as for a 3" S4 blast that would hit models that were already removed from play mostly anyway; completely unnecessary - why add the complication, i cant believed they designed the rule to lead to such a strange and undecipherable chain of events...

@striderx - i guess you get your consensus from those you play with, if i am unsure i ask the most experienced players to look at the rule and tell me what they think BEFORE (and thats crucial) i give my opinion or pitch them why i think it works a certain way. Do it in a group, see them debate it between themselves and they will almost always reach a consensus, you can join in if you wish, either way unless they are about to play you that very second they are unlikely to be bias. For tournaments someone makes a ruling so its out of your hands.

i'm not accusing you as a win at all costs, you have an opinion backed up by text as its written down - i believe your opinion is unintuitive, others don't. So best to see what the people you play with think when they come to their own conclusions and work with the consensus they give you. I was just trying to validate the idea that "what most people think is right" IS actually a good way to decide what is right in this instance.

perhaps we should poll it for fun. Im a noob so i dont know how to set it up, im sure its easy but meh - its nearly four in the morning and i need to brush my orky teef

somerandomdude wrote:I never said it was frivolous, I said it was unnecessary. Meaning, it was not needed. Meaning, if they had left it out, it would not have changed enough to have a significant effect. Meaning, if they had left it out, we wouldn't have 3 pages of discussion on this, there wouldn't be old topics without resolution, and I wouldn't have needed to quote an FAQ ruling that only talks about Apocalypse.
I know very well what can happen with a penetrating hit (I have been reading this thread, after all...)

?How can a whole part of a rule which has a clear and distinct effect of game play be 'unnecessary'? It's the damn rule, and it's in no may a tautology, you might not like it, but the rule needs it to work...!

@striderx: Not really, the actual rule-text of the 6,6 entry is "Any model hit by the gun is removed from play." and "Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit." So one can snipe (the idea of sniping with a large explosion appeals to me for some reason with it as it doesn't use the wounding process. And that vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit, surly if every vehicle doesn't take a pen we haven't satisfied this part of the rule?

somerandomdude wrote:As much as I hate to do this, maybe this will shed some light on things:

Q. Are models that are immune to instant death
(such as those with eternal warrior) removed
from the table when hit by a Shokk Attack Gun
which rolls a “Raargh” result?
A. Yes, unless they are gargantuan creatures or
super-heavy vehicles (see the Apocalypse book).

I know nothing about Apocalypse, but are super-heavies treated like vehicles and follow their rules, except when specified?

This FAQ implies that vehicles would be subject to the "remove from play" effect, because they had to specify that super-heavies were not affected. At least, it implies it as much as the Ork Codex implies that vehicles are unaffected.

I don't like it, but that's what I'd rule.

The sentence about pentrating hits is unnecessary (and it's not strengthening any side of the argument to argue otherwise).

That's the current FAQ? I suppose that does mean it's the counter-intuitive, unprecedented side, then. Sad, that. Though I understand there's a considerable disconnect from the official stance on various things in the Ork Codex when it was new, and what much later FAQs said, what can you do? An official ruling is an official ruling, even if it's framed as "official house rules" or whatnot.

arkapello wrote:
thats the argument AGAINST it removing vehicles from play, RAW do say you hit all vehicles - it doesn't say just under the template. thats wrong, no one actually does that right? right, we INTERPRET it as referring to vehicles under template. so you have already imposed an interpretation on the written rules because it made more sense. you don't have a problem with doing it once - do it again, vehicles only take a pen. seems to make more sense and explains why they would bother with the penetrating hit being within the explanation of what should happen. If GW wanted there to be a way for the vehicle to get removed from play but still give the passengers a chance to disembark they have truly gone about it in the most oddball/obscure way possible and as for a 3" S4 blast that would hit models that were already removed from play mostly anyway; completely unnecessary - why add the complication, i cant believed they designed the rule to lead to such a strange and undecipherable chain of events...

It is not - as you still need to perform the actions in the first part of the rule and removed the models (yes vehicles) if you haven't done that then you haven't made the rule happy. I find it very unsettling how you talking about how things "seem", things seem differently to different people I personally have no trouble grasping the concept of a vehicle taking a pen in addition to being reemoved from play and resolving the effects of this as normal - Whats more the vehicles should in addition take a STR12 hit. What is unclear about this rule? What bit are you struggling with? Did it need a "resolve the effects of this pen as normal?" or some other disclaimer to make it feel 'neater' for you? It seems to me that this rule is very easy to follow as long as one follows the rules, and anyone trying to mitigate the damage from is really is being unfair.

So we seem to have the odd situation, that superheavies and gargantuan creatures are not "removed from play" but everything else is.

Oh god im so happy i left this earlier >.<

Guys, just agree to disagree? proving other people on the internet are wrong is like shooting fish a barrel, sept with dynamite. Its not worth it, but it makes you look cool.

juraigamer wrote:Yup, you have rule a, commonly argued by people that want to WAAC, and rule b, for intelligent people. We should really stop trying to take the fun outta the game to this extent guys, play and enjoy.

That's YOUR assumption. From another person's perspective, he might think you are just a troll. It works both ways

arkapello wrote: thats the argument AGAINST it removing vehicles from play, RAW do say you hit all vehicles - it doesn't say just under the template. thats wrong, no one actually does that right? right, we INTERPRET it as referring to vehicles under template. so you have already imposed an interpretation on the written rules because it made more sense. you don't have a problem with doing it once - do it again, vehicles only take a pen.

Yeah, my question has been answered, and the RAW about hitting all vehicles has been explained against. So your argument here is once again, flawed.
Btw, imposing an interpretation on "written rules" based on language rules, is different from imposing an interpretation on "written rules" based on your own logic. The former is build upon a common ground where everyone in the WORLD is familiar with or have a common understanding of, whereas the latter can/may differ from person to person.