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 suddenly feel like painting eyes on my Hive Guard and Zoanthropes.

 FlingitNow wrote:

again I disagree with your interpretation of RIA, in fact it would be intended to be the opposite of what you have said, its a gun that projects gravity, distorting it behond the confines of normal time and space, and creating a well, the larger the mass, the more damaging the effect would be, i.e. an infantryman has a better chance of surviving than a large vehicle would.

On eyes, with no rulebook definition of eyes we fall to normal English definition.

And you know where the Eyes on this Alien creature that is fictitious are?



Mind pointing them out to me?

He 'sees' using a psychic detection field projected from right behind the front plate here... *AAAHHHHHH* It took my arm off!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

again I disagree with your interpretation of RIA, in fact it would be intended to be the opposite of what you have said, its a gun that projects gravity, distorting it behond the confines of normal time and space, and creating a well, the larger the mass, the more damaging the effect would be, i.e. an infantryman has a better chance of surviving than a large vehicle would.

On eyes, with no rulebook definition of eyes we fall to normal English definition.

And you know where the Eyes on this Alien creature that is fictitious are?



Mind pointing them out to me?

No I don't know where its eyes are therefore it can not draw LOS to any model ever as we have no where to draw LOS from RAW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

again I disagree with your interpretation of RIA, in fact it would be intended to be the opposite of what you have said, its a gun that projects gravity, distorting it behond the confines of normal time and space, and creating a well, the larger the mass, the more damaging the effect would be, i.e. an infantryman has a better chance of surviving than a large vehicle would.

On eyes, with no rulebook definition of eyes we fall to normal English definition.

And you know where the Eyes on this Alien creature that is fictitious are?



Mind pointing them out to me?

No I don't know where its eyes are therefore it can not draw LOS to any model ever as we have no where to draw LOS from RAW.

Well the hypothetical alien creature in the pic actually has eyes.

We do not recognize them as eyes because of its alien physiology, but they are there...


Bottom line the "normal English definition" of eyes does not work in this case because the creature, while it has eyes, those eyes do not fit into the "normal English definition" of what an eye is because it is an alien creature, and fictitious.

Well the hypothetical alien creature in the pic actually has eyes.

We do not recognize them as eyes because of its alien physiology, but they are there...


Bottom line the "normal English definition" of eyes does not work in this case because the creature, while it has eyes, those eyes do not fit into the "normal English definition" of what an eye is because it is an alien creature, and fictitious.

If we don't use the normal English definition and there is no game definition therefore by RaW the word has no meaning, thus no model can ever draw LOS RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Well the hypothetical alien creature in the pic actually has eyes.

We do not recognize them as eyes because of its alien physiology, but they are there...


Bottom line the "normal English definition" of eyes does not work in this case because the creature, while it has eyes, those eyes do not fit into the "normal English definition" of what an eye is because it is an alien creature, and fictitious.

If we don't use the normal English definition and there is no game definition therefore by RaW the word has no meaning, thus no model can ever draw LOS RaW.

I am not saying we should not use the "normal English definition" of words, indeed we have to to make the game playable.

I am saying, that in this case, the "normal English definition" of eyes does not fit for all models, so we have to figure out how to play it as RAW is broken/impossible to figure out in some cases.

Personally I feel that if they had intended for vehicles to get a cover save, then it would probably affect a vehicle on a 5 or 6 instead of a longshot 6. Yes it can theoretically take down a land raider, but in the 6 games I have faced a land raider with my frankly grav spammy list, I have yet to kill on once with grav. And this was with my command squad with 4 AND 3 centurions with grav cannons all shooting at it.

And the people denying the 2nd hull point lost, like suddenly the rules changed because something was good at immobilizing, they know better and are faking ignorance. No where does it say you have to roll on the vehicle chart for immobilized to be a real immobilized result. It says on the 2nd immobilize, you take an additional hull point. It does not care what the source of it was or how it was produced. The rule was added to combat the total vehicle dominance of previous editions where spamming rhinos and getting the same results time and time again meant it absorbed far more firepower than intended. Seriously you could hit an immobilized rhino with 4 lascannons, roll like crap and blow off its already thrice blown off storm bolter, or immobilize it 3 times, or shake and stun it till kingdom come. And don't get me started on the stupidity of deepstriking in drop pods behind enemies, and having the immobile weaponless drop pod somehow wipe out a retreating squad. I guess it raised the hatches and waited for them to pass, and used them like pinball paddles whacking them into the ground like whack a mole.

Actually in 5th when you got a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle with no weapons it turned into an immobilised result, when you got an immobilised result on an already immobilised vehicle it turned into a weapon destroyed result, and if you got either on an immobilised vehicle with no weapons you wrecked the vehicle.

Personally I feel that if they had intended for vehicles to get a cover save, then it would probably affect a vehicle on a 5 or 6 instead of a longshot 6. Yes it can theoretically take down a land raider, but in the 6 games I have faced a land raider with my frankly grav spammy list, I have yet to kill one once with grav. And this was with my command squad with 4 AND 3 centurions with grav cannons all shooting at it.

It really isn't a long shot. My Grav Centurions have never failed to kill a vehicle they have fired at (on average stripping 7 hull points). Remember it is not just cover saves that are by passed it is invulnerable saves. Does that not tell you something is up?Surely if they wanted it to ignore cover they would have told you rather than have you have to work out that it bypasses the cover and invulnerable save process.

Grav Centurions have 5 shots 2/3 chance to hit and 11/36 chance to roll a 6. That's just over 1 six rolled per Centurion. Even with a 5+ cover 1 turn of shooting should reduce a LR to 1HP, hence why I run them in 4s as they should kill any vehicle you point them at.