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.

Glaive, there really is no debate here! The RAW says make a save or take a wound. It doesn't say 'at the strength of the weapon fired' anywhere in my rulebook. 

Since Glaive never did bother to enumerate premises and a conclusion, I'll simply claim vicotry by default.

Since Glaive never did bother to enumerate premises and a conclusion, I'll simply claim vicotry by default.

Page 2, 4th post from the bottom.

Why does everyone think the AP wound be counted as well. READ THE POSTS. We ALL agree that a wound is caused. Okay, we all agree that the Str is not rolled to create the wound. We also all agree that even though the AP prevents a Save, they get one anyway because the detailed rule of Gets Hot over-rides the general. The wound is made, the save was failed. Gets Hot doesn't matter from this point on, so take that rule, and shove it up your butt. What caused the wound? Your two choices are "Get Hot" or "The Weapon". Gets Hot is a "feature" of the weapon. It is not a "thing".

I am being totally honest here. I would like help finding "rules" that cause wounds. Vehicle Explodes is not the rule wounding the model, but the vehcile that exploded. I want to find a precedent for a "rule" causing "wounds". If we can find something close, then we may be able to claim that "Gets Hot" the rule caused the wound. If no, it will be pretty hard to argue against the "weapon" causing the wound.

mauleed! You magnificent son of a *female dog*! I read your book! Congratulations on making me stand up at my desk and scream F*** YOU! at the top of my lungs. You people are killing me man! Read this thread and read the relevant rulebook entries. You don't even have to do it in that order. But you MUST do it. If you haven't done it you are just adding idiotic conjecture that doesn't really help the cause. Or, you are just claiming that if we all stick our heads in the sand and scream "La La La La" we can ignore the rules and just go on playing the way we feel like. Either way, it's still wasting everybody's time.

How do I know you haven't read the rulebook or the thread? Easy. I keep having to repeat myself! "But if the weapon wounds the guy than the stength is blah blah..." NOTHING! I'm losing it here!

Now I'm trying to inject real world physics into this situation? What the hell are you talking about!? If you get a slow burn on a round, then an unexpected fire it might not kill you. If you stack a bullet in the barrel due to insufficient powder it might not kill you. If you get hit with a .45 round traveling at high velocity it might not kill you. Now, re-read all of those sentences and remove the word "not." Wierd huh? Apparently, you can die from weapons even when they aren't being used by the enemy against you. These are real world situations.

I'm using a game mechanic that says when something wounds a model and that something has a S double the T or more of the model that something will insta-kill the model. If the model ejects the clip into the palm of his hand and the clip has S6 he has just been killed. That's a game mechanic.

Hopefully, we can all see the difference now.

Oh, and since mauleed never did bother to read this post or the relevant parts of the rulebook I will claim a victory over him. Not by default, by admitted ignorance.

hehehe

Why do you think that particular detailed rule (Get's Hot) overrides the general (AP), and yet the same detailed rule (Get's Hot) doesn't override the general (St)?

What happens is that a specific precondition causes a consiquence due to a written rule. Same with vehicle exposions (vehicle explodes, use rule to determine how many wounds... if any... are caused). Same with destroyed transports carrying troops at the time, same with penetrated transports moving >6" (shooting from the hip on that one, my rulebook is still held hostage in Hawaii, not sure of that distance value).

Anything not held within that rule is something that's getting made up. Don't read into it too much. Just do what the rule says, in it's plain language.

Why do you think that particular detailed rule (Get's Hot) overrides the general (AP), and yet the same detailed rule (Get's Hot) doesn't override the general (St)?

What? READ THE POSTS, READ THE POSTS. We are not claiming that the general (st) is overwritten by the specific (gets hot). Read my post:

Gets Hot doesn't matter from this point on, so take that rule, and shove it up your butt.

You stop using Gets Hot after the wound is caused and the save is failed. Move on. We are strictly talking about ID. So what caused the wound. I will not be responding to you anymore.

If KiMonarrez and Mauleed agree that you're wrong, either the Devil's coming up for a space heater or there's something wrong with your assertation.

If KiMonarrez and Mauleed agree that you're wrong, either the Devil's coming up for a space heater or there's something wrong with your assertation.

Mauleed has yet to respond to Glaive, and no one listens to KiMonarrez anyway.

If KiMonarrez and Mauleed agree that you're wrong, either the Devil's coming up for a space heater or there's something wrong with your assertation.

I've seen two people be wrong at the same time before. Tell the Devil to relax until we get an FAQ that eliminates all rules questions.

Sorry, I found the argument (thanks Relic), so I'll repost it and respond:

Question: Can the IG wargear item "Medi-pack" be used to ignore the first failed save per turn of a plasmagun overheating?

Premise 1: Medi -packs can't be used if the model has been inta-killed. "The medi-pack may not be used by any model which suffers instant death (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook)..." pg. 35 Codex Imperial Guard

Premise 2: When a plasmagun overheats the weapon wounds the user. "...the weapon has overheated and injured the model firing it. The model must make an Armour Save or it suffers a wound..."pg 30 BGB

Premise 3: When something is wounded by anything that has a Strength double their Toughness or more they are insta-killed. "If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save they are killed outright and removed as a casualty." pg. 27 BGB

Conclusion: Medi-packs cannot be used to save a T3 guardman from a plasma oveheat.

Premise 2 is simply false. No rule, and particularly not the one you quoted, says the weapon wounds the user.

So, since I, and others, dispute your premise 2, you must prove that to be true. The simplest way is to construct another argument that has premise 2 as the conclusion. If we can't "break" that, we'll accept premise 2 as correct, and hence this argument as correct (as I would agree that this is the conclusion you would draw from those premises, if they were in fact correct).

So two more premises and a conclusion please.

Sorry, but I must chime in again here. Glaive I would equate your argument to the following

1)vehical explosions wound toughness 10 models on a 4+
2)Only strength 10 hits can wound toughness 10 models on a 4+
3)Therefore vehical explosions are Strength 10.

It does not matter if the guardsman is holding a str7 ap 2 plasma gun, or a str2 ap nil blasta that just over heated. According to the rule if a 1 is rolled he takes a wound with a save allowed. Be it a plasma gun or a dinky pistol, the rule is independent of the weapon and the guy takes the same wound. The fact that the only weapons that overheat are str6 and up is confusing you.

No need to say it 3 times man! Or is there? Is that why you guys are ignoring my posts!?

I just finished my essay to find it deleted so I'll do it again.

Premise 2 is simply false. No rule, and particularly not the one you quoted, says the weapon wounds the user.

"the weapon has overheated and injured the model firing it" doesn't say the weapon wounds the model? What does it say? I'm afraid I'm going to need more than just "premise 2 is false". I am going to need some quote or rule that says differently.

Yeah, dakka acting strange, it booted me off while I was posting that, have it fixed.

This is good stuff though! I must admit it's worth a chuckle at least. Just to be sure I understand: You're saying that out of any of the rules in the rulebook that could support my argument (which there aren't) the sentence I quoted has absolutely nothing to do with it. "You're honor, I would like to request that the video of my client beating that man to death be stricken from evidence as it certainly has no bearing on this murder case whatsoever."

Question: Is the wound caused by the 'Gets Hot' rule related to the weapon?

Premise 1: When a weapon overheats it is responsible for the wound that occurs. "If you roll a 1 to hit, the weapon has overheated and injured the model firing it. The model must make an Armor Save or it suffers a wound (an exception to the normal Casualty Removal rules) - the model with the overheating weapon must take the wound."

Premise 2: Even though the evidence for Premise 1 has been deemed inadmissable as evidence there is still more. "It is possible for a model to hit with shots that also result in an overheat - the hits are still resolved as normal, even if the firer also falls victim to his own weapon."

Premise 3: The 'Gets Hot' rule is only ever used by weapons that possess that trait. In other words, 'Gets Hot' doesn't just randomly occur. A weapon that is subject to that rule is needed to invoke the rule. " 'Gets Hot' represents the penchant of certain unstable weapons for overloading and badly singeing their user." "Plasma gun Range 24" S7 AP2 Type Rapid Fire, Gets Hot!"

Conclusion: The wound is not only related to the weapon, but it is caused by the weapon.

Perhaps this will be acceptable.

Oh, and foil please read the rest of this thread. I already use that as evidence for my argument. I'll re-iterate it here though since the more I type it the more I slip into a hypnotic trance. 'Gets Hot' does not reference the strength of the weapon ever. It doesn't need to. Assume that the guardman is T10 and the weapon is S1. If he was hit by an icomming round from the weapon he could never be wounded. If the weapon overheats on him (and he fails his save) he will be wounded. So Strength has notjhing to do with 'Gets Hot.' The problem arises when we look at the rules for 'Instant Death.' That is where it tells us that if a creature is wounded by something that has a S double their T or more they are insta-killed. So, he hasn't been hit with a S7 shot, but he has been wounded by a S7 weapon.

So Strength has notjhing to do with 'Gets Hot.'

Dude, you said it yourself. If strength has nothing to do with gets hot, than how can it apply anywhere in this argument?

Strength has everything to do with 'Instant Death.' I don't know how else I can explain it to you, but if you'd like, I can try.

So Strength has notjhing to do with 'Gets Hot.'

Dude, you said it yourself. If strength has nothing to do with gets hot, than how can it apply anywhere in this argument?

This is actually a little funny.

Once again, as has been said many times throughout this thread, he is not saying that the firing guy suffers instant death because he takes a S7 hit. He agrees that the wound has no Strength. That does not matter, because the rules for instant death say, very clearly, if a model is wounded by something that has a Strength equal to double Toughness or more, then it is instantly killed. So the question is not what Strength the Gets Hot wound is. The only question is whether or not the plasma gun, which has a Strength of enough to cause instant death, caused the wound. If it can be shown that it caused the wound, then instant death applies, even if the wound itself has no Strength at all.

Glaive,

If it makes you feel any better, you've convinced me.

GW's silly use of the word "something" in the instant death rule (as in: "if a creature is wounded by something. . ."), has made it impossible to refute your argument IMO.

"Something" is simply too general.


That said, I think wasting this much energy on this topic is silly since you've already admitted that no one is actually going to play that way, and worse, it doesn't affect the real offender: Space Marines and their damned apothecary.

Guard can only take one medic in their army and the CHQ is usually hiding behind a forest somewhere.

Marines are the army who can abuse this rule, and instant-death doesn't even apply to them in this case.


SO WHY WASTE THE ENERGY TYPING ANYMORE?


Everyone go have a drink and relax.

My 2 cents.

NO!

"Once again, as has been said many times throughout this thread, he is not saying that the firing guy suffers instant death because he takes a S7 hit. He agrees that the wound has no Strength. That does not matter, because the rules for instant death say, very clearly, if a model is wounded by something that has a Strength equal to double Toughness or more, then it is instantly killed. So the question is not what Strength the Gets Hot wound is. The only question is whether or not the plasma gun, which has a Strength of enough to cause instant death, caused the wound. If it can be shown that it caused the wound, then instant death applies, even if the wound itself has no Strength at all."

That's a square peg/round hole argument.

I'll even use your words above to prove the point. You said it yourself. "the wound has no strength." The rules don't allow it to HAVE a strength. If that's the case, and you don't dispute it's accuracy... then that's the end of it.

The wound has no strength. The wound was caused by a plasma weapon that has enough strength to ID... but it doesn't matter, because the wound has no strength.


It's circular logic... and it's wrong.

I was willing to let this die for the reasons above yakface, but I can't seem to do that anymore. I'm sure most people would probably be able to ignore the strange posts in here and go about the rest of their day realizing that in the end, it just doesn't matter.

But, I am a small petty, petty man.

I am admittedly bothered when I am accused of not reading the rules or not accepting the RAW. The only reason I even figured this out is because I read the rules for the medi-pac a few nights ago for the first time. The fact that it says it doesn't work on insta-kills made me take a step back and re-read the rules for insta-kills. Then I re-read the rules for 'Gets Hot' and that's why we're here.

Now, I don't mind if we all just want to say "Hey, the RAW is stupid. We should be able to use medi-packs to make plasma weapon overheats less dangerous." No problem. But what I get is "You're not using the RAW. Only we are! Prove that 'something' means weapon. Now prove that weapons overheat. Now prove that when a weapon wounds a model it's strength is used for insta-kills. Now prove that weapons overheat!"

I have to say that Glaive's argument is convincing.

Also, an IG army can have a medic in any command squad, not just the CHQ.

"Now, I don't mind if we all just want to say "Hey, the RAW is stupid. We should be able to use medi-packs to make plasma weapon overheats less dangerous." No problem. "

Hey, if you want to end it at that... I'm game. Far too many examples of that already.

I wasn't going to say anything in this discussion because it looked like it was settling out, but my impression when the question first came up was like Yak's: that the use of the word "something" in the phrasing of the rule makes it process out (probably unintentionally) so that instant death does occur from the "gets hot" rule. Honky Bro's arguments were giving the impression that they were built on a string of unfounded (and unecessary) assumptions, but if you just work with the rules, I think that's what the RAW says.

Care to expound on that Flav? I'm curious what your take is, and how it would work out.

I'll even use your words above to prove the point. You said it yourself. "the wound has no strength." The rules don't allow it to HAVE a strength. If that's the case, and you don't dispute it's accuracy... then that's the end of it.

The wound has no strength. The wound was caused by a plasma weapon that has enough strength to ID... but it doesn't matter, because the wound has no strength.


It's circular logic... and it's wrong.

Actually, it is right, because the rules for Instant Death do not say that the model must take a wound of Strength X in order to suffer instant death. All they say is that the model must be wounded by something that has a Strength equal to twice the Toughness. So, by your words, if the wound was caused by the plasma weapon, and that plasma weapon has the requisite Strength, then Instant Death occurs. It does not matter what the Strength of the wound is. Not by the words in the Instant Death rule, anyway.

I'm also curious about Flavius's post (and Yak's stance as well).  The word 'something' as it applies to this scenario is a Plasmagun. the 'Gets Hot' rule doesn't wound models in any way other than the 'Template Weapons' rule wounds models, or the 'Shooting Rules' wounds models. In this case a weapon has scored a wound using the 'Gets Hot' rule. If a plasma cannon is fired at a unit models there would suffer wounds caused by the weapon as well. The 'Shooting Rules' would be used. Then the 'Blast Weapons' rule would be used. The weapon has still caused the wound in both circumstances. Only the method of wounding is different.